    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               PUERTO RICO STATUS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                    H.R. 856

    A Bill To provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto
                                      Rico

                                   __________

                         MARCH 19, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 105-16

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     40-445                      WASHINGTON : 1997
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               NICK LAMPSON, Texas
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  RON KIND, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held March 19, 1997......................................     1

    Text of H.R. 856.................................................

    Statement of Members:
        Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana.........    00
        Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from the Virgin
          Islands....................................................    00
        Deutsch, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Representative from Florida......    00
        Gutierrez, Hon. Luis, a U.S. Representative from Illinois....    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Lagomarsino, Hon. Robert J., a U.S. Representative from
          California.................................................    00
        McCollum, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from Florida......    00
        Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California...    00
        Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., a U.S. Resident Commissioner
          from Puerto Rico...........................................    00
        Serrano, Hon. Jose, a U.S. Representative from New York......    00
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia, a U.S. Representative from New York...    00
        Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
          Chairman, Committee on Resources...........................    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
    Statement of Witnesses:
        Acevedo-Vila, Anibal, President of the Popular Democreatic
          Party......................................................    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Berrios-Martinez, Ruben, President of Puerto Rican
          Independence Party.........................................    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Farrow, Jeffrey L., Co-Chair, The President's Administration
          Working Group on Puerto Rico...............................    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Ferre, Luis, President of the New Progressive Party..........    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Rossello, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico.....................    00
            Prepared statement.......................................
        Zeder, Fred M., II, Rancho Mirage, CA (prepared statement)...    00
    Additional material supplied:
        Administration Shelves Plan To Give Guam More Autonomy, by
          Peter Baker (Washington Post)..............................    00
        Hill Panels to Probe China Influence Buying Allegations, by
          Robert Suro (Washington, Post).............................    00
        House Concurrent Resolution 2 (PR)...........................    00
        Introducrion of the United States-Puerto Rico Political
          Status Act--Hon. Don Young (Congressional Record)..........    00
        Letters between Clinton, Young could bode ill for `bilateral'
          pact, by Robert Friedman (STAR Washington Bureau)..........    00
        Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, George Bush...    00
        Oversight Plan for the 105th Congress, Committee on
          Resources, and Legislative History.........................    00
        Press Releases of Committee on Resources.....................    00
        Puerto Rico's New Self-governing Status (Dept. of State
          Bulletin...................................................    00
        Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly (UN) at its
          Eighth Session.............................................    00
        Resolutions from the Popular Democratic Party................    00
        Signs of Policy Shift on Status of Guam Appeared After
          Contributions to Democrats, by John Pomfret (Washington
          Post)......................................................    00
        Summary of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Act.......    00
        Updated United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, by
          Hon. Don Young (Congressional Record)......................    00
        Zeder, Fred M., II: Understanding Free Association as a Form
          of Separate Sovereignty and Political Independence in the
          Case of Decolonization of Puerto Rico......................    00
    Communications submitted:
        Clinton, President Bill: Letter of January 21, 1997, to
          Chairman Don Young.........................................    00
        Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, and Hon. Robert A. Underwood:
          Letter to Hon. William J. Clinton dated January 13, 1997...    00
        Young, Hon. Don: Letter to Hon. William Jefferson Clintom of
          December 11, 1996..........................................    00

                 UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1997

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:07 a.m. in room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman
    of the Committee) presiding.
        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        It is a pleasure to welcome the witnesses here today as the
    Committee on Resources considers H.R. 856, the U.S.-Puerto Rico
    Political Status Act.
        I am going to ask the audience if you would please try to
    restrain yourselves. This is going to be a hearing that may
    take a great deal of time. I want to offer as much courtesy as
    I can to the witnesses who appear today.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
              ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

        The Chairman. Today, we begin an important part of the
    congressional consideration of legislation to resolve Puerto
    Rico's political status by hearing from some of our colleagues
    in the House, the Governor of Puerto Rico, leaders of the three
    political parties of Puerto Rico and the Clinton
    Administration.
        Last month, the top leader of the Puerto Rico Legislature
    presented copies of House Concurrent Resolution 2 asking the
    Congress to authorize a political status referendum to be held
    before the end of 1998. This legislation responds to the
    legislature's request to provide the necessary framework
    leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico.
        I thank the witnesses from Puerto Rico for traveling to
    Washington to personally present their views on this
    legislation to the Committee. Your views today, and others
    later in Puerto Rico, are a crucial part of development of
    final legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political status.
        Next month, the Committee will go to San Juan and Mayaguez
    to hear from the people of Puerto Rico.
        We will start today's hearings with a Members panel, whose
    comments I know will be very helpful to the Committee. I want
    to mention that the Committee has received a statement
    regarding this legislation and Puerto Rico's political status
    from a former member of this Committee, Bob Lagomarsino. I
    would like to ask unanimous consent to submit his comments.
        [Statement of Mr. Lagomarsino follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Robert J. Lagomarsino, a U.S. Representative from
                                   California

        On January 23, 1997, the Legislature of Puerto Rico adopted
    Concurrent Resolution 2. This measure called upon the 105th
    Congress to establish a self-determination process which will
    enable the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to complete
    the decolonization of the territory which began in 1952. It was
    in 1952 that an earlier joint self-determination process
    approved by Congress and the people pursuant to U.S. Public Law
    600 culminated in establishment of internal constitutional
    self-government for Puerto Rico.
        The Chairman of the Resources Committee and all the co-
    sponsors of H.R. 856 are to be commended for responding in a
    timely and bipartisan manner to the Legislature's request by
    introducing this historic legislation on February 27, 1997. I
    support the bill without reservation, and in my own view every
    Member of Congress who joins the sponsors of this bill in
    securing its early approval will be serving the national
    interest in a very significant way.
        For far too long Congress acquiesced in the deferral of
    self determination for Puerto Rico. I had always hoped we could
    deliver on the American idea of equality and full self-
    government for the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico
    when I was in Congress. Of course, that could only be
    accomplished by offering the people of Puerto Rico accurately
    defined choices between the status quo, statehood or separate
    nationhood, and then determining if Congress and the people can
    agree on the terms for implementing the option chosen.
        While that somehow never seemed possible in the past, I
    believe H.R. 856 will accomplish this goal. Thus I welcome the
    opportunity to submit this statement in support of the measure.

    the moment of truth for the united states and puerto rico: more perfect
          union through statehood or an end to union through separate
                                  nationality?

        In the U.S. system of constitutional federalism, statehood
    is the most perfect form of political union. For any territory
    within the sovereignty of the U.S. and having a U.S. citizen
    population, only statehood constitutes full self-government
    based on the principle of equality with all other citizens.
    Short of statehood, the less perfected but next most complete
    condition of political union is that of an incorporated
    territory to which the U.S. Constitution and political rights
    have been extended to the fullest extent possible for a non-
    state area within U.S. sovereignty. Historically, this is the
    conventional path to statehood.
        Unincorporated status with internal self-government under a
    local constitution, including the ``commonwealth'' structure of
    local self-government, is the status which occupies the next
    lower position in the scheme of political union under the
    constitution. While the federal constitution applies in full to
    the states, and incorporated territories can achieve ``virtual
    statehood'' through integration into the constitutional process
    on the broadest level possible, under the territorial clause
    and the court-invented legal status theory of the Insular Cases
    an unincorporated territory is integrated into the union in a
    far more narrow sense. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1904);
    Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).
        Thus, even where statutory U.S. citizenship is extended and
    there is elected local government under a constitution or an
    organic act, only ``fundamental rights'' under the federal
    constitution apply of their own force in an unincorporated
    territory. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298
    (1922). Otherwise the U.S. Constitution and federal law apply
    only temporarily to the extent Congress determines in its
    discretion under the territorial clause. Reid v. Covert, 354
    U.S. 1 (1957).
        These U.S. Supreme Court decisions establish that the
    unincorporated ``commonwealth'' relationship is temporary by
    nature, and disenfranchisement and less-than-equal
    discriminatory treatment of citizens of the territory is deemed
    constitutionally permissible. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651
    (1980). Even in the organized and locally self-governing
    unincorporated territories, including Puerto Rico, the plenary
    nature of the territorial clause power reduces the operation
    and effect of the principles of limited government, national
    uniformity, and rule of law as practiced in the states.
        The only more imperfect form of union than that of the
    unincorporated U.S. territories is that of unorganized
    possessions (Example: Wake Island). While residents of
    incorporated and unincorporated territories and possessions can
    enjoy many of the blessings of American citizenship to the
    extent Congress determines, including economic benefits and
    security through various degrees of political union with the
    United States, only statehood confers a condition of permanent
    and constitutionally guaranteed equal citizenship and full
    self-government.
        Thus, for the population of any territory which wishes to
    remain within U.S. sovereignty, completion of the process of
    integration through statehood is the only path to full self-
    government. The only alternative within the framework of the
    U.S. Constitution is to continue indefinitely in a less than
    fully self-governing status, which is plausible only as long as
    Congress deems that to be consistent with the national interest
    and the people concerned do not themselves make the choices
    required to seek a change of status.
        The only other path to full self-government for the peoples
    of the unincorporated U.S. territories is to seek though self-
    determination to achieve equal citizenship and full self-
    government based on separate sovereignty, nationality and
    citizenship. The options of separate sovereignty in the form of
    simple independence or free association are the two forms of
    full self-government through nationhood recognized under both
    international and U.S. law. See, Compact of Free Association
    Act of 1985 (U.S. Public Law 99-239).

        understanding the constitutional process for self-determination

        Obviously, there is a cultural dimension to the process for
    full and compete decolonization of Puerto Rico. However, the
    process for sustaining cultural identity and achieving social
    integration in our nation will continue to be played out
    through the evolution of American civilization at the cultural
    level.
        Without minimizing the importance of the cultural
    reconciliation that is essential to successful decolonization,
    it must recognized that as a political transaction
    decolonization is accomplished through the legal and
    constitutional mechanisms by which the inherent sovereignty of
    our people is established, recognized and exercised. Until the
    ultimate status of the people of Puerto Rico is resolved
    through sovereign self-government based on either statehood or
    separate nationality, the manner in which sovereignty is
    exercised in the case of Puerto Rico will be dysfunctional to
    the extent that it is constitutionally incomplete and less than
    equal.
        To promote recovery by Puerto Rico and the nation as a
    whole from the dysfunctional dynamics of the colonial
    relationship, it is necessary to recognize that in our
    political economic system prosperity and a higher quality of
    life must never be taken for granted. Rather, as Ronald Reagan
    told the General Assembly of the United Nation in 1987, all the
    things we identify with the ``good life'' in America are the
    product or results of the rights we have under our
    constitutional system.
        These includes equal justice under the law, freedom of
    expression and conscience, limited government, consent of the
    governed, rule of law, an ordered scheme of liberty and due
    process. Once these rights are secured we must exercise them
    vigorously and meet the responsibilities of citizenship in
    order to preserve the national interest and pursue individual
    happiness.
        In the case of Puerto Rico, however, the full rights of
    citizenship have not yet been secured, and the residents of
    Puerto Rico have not yet experienced in their homeland the full
    responsibilities and rewards of equal citizenship. The
    conditions that have prevented completion of decolonization in
    favor of a recognized form of sovereign self-government have
    been more political and legal than cultural.
        Full decolonization has been delayed for so long that the
    failure to resolve the underlying political status issue has
    become the most problematic element of the overall process of
    cultural and economic integration as well. In other words, the
    incomplete political status process is impeding the social,
    economic and cultural process of decolonization and
    reconciliation.
        Thus, in 100 years the people of Puerto Rico and the other
    peoples of our nation as a whole have developed strong and
    positive cultural and economics inter-relationships, but the
    failure to resolve the political status question in a legal and
    constitutional sense is preventing the achievement an ultimate
    social reconciliation which can be sustained through either
    statehood or separate sovereignty in accordance with the wishes
    of the people.
        In order for the people to express their wishes as to which
    political status will be adopted to sustain their identity as
    well as their relationship with the U.S., there must be a
    constitutionally valid process in which the options are defined
    clearly. That is what H.R. 856 will provide.
        Thus, rather than focusing here on the cultural dimension
    of the decolonization process, it is imperative that we examine
    more closely the legal and constitutional mechanics of the
    process. For it is through these mechanisms that the people
    will be empowered to express their will at the political, as
    well as the cultural, levels. This is how the true identity of
    a people is translated through self determination into full
    self-government.
        Definitions of status options that are not realistic or
    which can not be implemented disempower the people and
    undermine the decolonization process. That is what happened in
    1993, and the following discussion reflects my judgment that
    H.R. 856 will establish a process that will produce results
    which both Puerto Rico and the Congress will be able to
    understand. This will provide the basis for completion of the
    decolonization process that began with adoption of the local
    constitution under P.L. 600 in 1952.
        It is significant, therefore, that, like the provisions of
    Public Law 600 which established the process for approval of
    the local constitution in 1952, H.R. 856 would establish a
    multi-staged process for completing the next--and final--phase
    of decolonization. Thus, H.R. 856 recognizes that until the
    decolonization process is completed the political union between
    the U.S. and Puerto Rico is defined constitutionally as
    impermanent, and both of the two parties to the present
    political relationship retain the right of self-determination
    with respect to its future.
        Recognition that there are two parties to the self
    determination process--Congress and the residents of the less
    than fully self-governing territory, is entirely different from
    and contrary to the assertion of a ``bilateral'' relationship
    between an ``autonomous'' Puerto Rico and the U.S. based on an
    unalterable pact. The notion of a formal and legally binding
    ``bilateralism'' between the Congress and an unincorporated
    territory with the framework of the federal constitution is
    untenable.
        Indeed, putting aside for the moment only the cultural
    bonds which exist after 100 years of close albeit impermanent
    political union, the U.S. has the sovereign power
    constitutionally, as well as a right under applicable
    international law, unilaterally to terminate the relationship
    at any time in favor of independence for Puerto Rico.
    Nevertheless, the U.S. clearly intends, prefers and--in the
    absence of currently unforeseen circumstances--is committed to
    resolution of the status of Puerto Rico through a cooperative
    self-determination process.
        Thus, as a legally non-binding but voluntarily assumed
    obligation consistent with international standards of self-
    determination recognized by the United States, every Congress
    and every U.S. President since 1952 has recognized that the
    current status of Puerto Rico can be terminated in favor of
    permanent union or separate nationhood on terms approved by
    Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. As a consequence, only
    if Puerto Rico exercised the right of self-determination in
    favor of unilateral action on its part to terminate the
    relationship without an agreed succession process would the
    excellent prospects for a very orderly and cooperative process
    perhaps be changed.
        In addition to demonstrating that decolonization and a
    permanent status have not been achieved, the willingness of
    Congress and the President to recognize an on-going right of
    self-determination for both parties to the existing temporary
    form of political union confirms the need to include in any
    further self-determination process the same multi-staged
    decision-making mechanism as Congress employed in P.L. 600. For
    just as Congress recognized in Section 1 of P.L. 600 and must
    continue to recognize, the principle of consent of the governed
    applies in this case to both the people of the United States as
    a whole and to the people of Puerto Rico.
        It is required, therefore, that in resolving the status of
    Puerto Rico the Congress must exercise the right of self-
    determination on behalf of the U.S. citizens in the nation as a
    whole, while the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico whose status and
    relationship with the U.S. will be decided also have a right to
    self-determination. For as a distinct body politic in an
    impermanent political union with the United States, the U.S.
    citizens of Puerto Rico also must have the opportunity to
    express freely their wishes as to the status of Puerto Rico.
        Because H.R. 856 is grounded firmly in the historical
    process through which the people of an unincorporated territory
    can achieve full self-government through a legitimate process
    of self-determination, I strongly endorse and support its
    enactment. Upon approval, it will enable Congress and the
    people of Puerto Rico to enter the next century on a path to
    liberty and equality.

             self-determination based on dignity and mutual respect

        Within the evolutionary cultural process in our society
    there can exist many peoples and many nations in the cultural
    sense. Respect for this ethnic diversity and dignity, cultural
    pluralism, and transcendence of ethnocentricty in its negative
    forms is one of the difficult but essential lessons through
    which any civilization comes of age. The learning of this
    lesson through conflict and reconciliation, a drama played out
    in our open society for all the world to see, has been but
    another of the ways in which the United States of America has
    been a leader of world civilization in this century.
        Again, the resolution of Puerto Rico's political status
    remains the last act in the drama of decolonization and social
    reconciliation for our citizenry of the territory and the
    nation as a whole. In addition to the political and social
    dimensions of this process, economic integration is also an
    element of the evolving relationship. Luis Munoz Marin realized
    that continued political union with the U.S. was in Puerto
    Rico's economic interest, and that has been proven in recent
    years.
        Whether self-determination leads to statehood or separate
    nationhood, Puerto Rico would do well to stay with market-
    oriented reforms and private sector led development which have
    emerged after years of command economics and government managed
    markets. Only the market-driven economic model can be sustained
    without undue dependence on the discretion of Congress--which
    didn't prove too reliable in the case of the experimental
    economics of Section 936. Through strategic economic
    diversification Puerto Rico will recover from the Section 936
    corporate welfare scheme which was the economic engine of the
    colonial status quo--perpetrated in the name of the poor for
    the benefit of the powerful.
        In this cultural and economic context, the social
    integration between the people of Puerto Rico and the other
    peoples of this great nation has been one of the most enriching
    and rewarding of the major cultural processes which have shaped
    the American experience as our nation come of age in this
    century. It is a complex and challenging process, and there
    have been miscalculations and mistakes made by federal and
    territorial leaders which have not served well the people of
    the territory or the nation as a whole.
        However, in the territory and in the larger nation we have
    never given up on finding a solution, and while the momentum
    toward an ultimate status has been slowed at times it has never
    been broken. Now as the century draws to a close, it is time
    for the anachronistic political, legal and constitutional
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole to
    be brought into alignment with the more evolved social,
    cultural as well as economic relationships.
        Thus, as noted above, in drafting legislation to prescribe
    a self-determination process it is necessary to focus on how to
    resolve the political, legal and constitutional status of
    Puerto Rico in both procedural and substantive legal terms,
    rather than in cultural and ideological terms.
        Having underscored that point, I also want to note that it
    has been suggested to me on numerous occasions that there is
    little which is philosophically resonant about the legal
    mechanics of the constitutional process for self-determination.
    The lack of a poetic dimension to the politics of solutions
    instead of protest is something that has been pointed out to me
    frequently.
        I could not disagree more. For in my mind the Declaration
    of Independence, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and the
    Preamble to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    all contain the poetry of freedom.
        Some people may be more moved or have their passions more
    aroused by the literature of political alienation and cultural
    anger over past grievances. However, that kind of vitriolic
    self-indulgence and ideological solipsism often is a luxury
    that can be afforded by those who like to taste of fruit of
    freedom but have never had to pay for it.
        Perhaps we all need to stop and remember that in this
    century Puerto Rico's best and bravest have joined the best and
    bravest from throughout our nation and gone in harm's way so
    the rest of us can continue to live free. To honor their
    sacrifice, we have a duty to do the hard and sometimes tedious
    work of democracy and self-determination within the ordered
    scheme of liberty under our constitutional documents of
    freedom.
        Even if it is not always as glamorous or exhilarating as
    making pedantic pronouncements or reciting poetry about
    abstract notions of political philosophy, we owe it to those
    who saved all of us from the common enemy to resolve the status
    of Puerto Rico because that is what they would want us to do.
        So the next time some cultural separatist or ideological
    elitist condescendingly notes that there are no poems about the
    constitutional process for resolving the legal and political
    status of Puerto Rico, we should remember that in liberating
    strife the blood of Puerto Rican born Americans has mixed with
    that of Americans of all other backgrounds in the sands of
    Somalia and the muddy soil of Sicily. Apparently, these heroic
    people who made everything we have in America possible found
    the literature in the documents of our democracy inspiration
    enough to march into the gaping jaws of annihilation to
    preserve liberty for our common patria-pueblo.
        You want poetry about the difference between perpetual
    colonial status and constitutional equality? Have you read the
    words to the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' re-

    cently? Are you longing to hear the poetic expression of
    dignity through full participation in democracy? Try listening
    to a group of kids sing ``...God shed His Grace on thee, and
    crowned thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea...''
    That does not mean we have never fallen short of that ideal in
    the past, but it expresses what America--including Puerto
    Rico--has the potential to become if we all take the solemn
    work of democracy seriously.

    collapse of the ``unalterable bilateral pact'' doctrine of commonwealth

        Recognition by Congress in Section 1 of P.L. 600 of the
    principle of consent was ``in the nature of a compact''
    involved joint consent only with respect to the process for
    approval of the constitution. When the people voted to approve
    the terms of P.L. 600 on June 4, 1951, the agreement which was
    ``in the nature of a compact'' was that the constitution would
    be approved in the manner prescribed by P.L. 600. It was an
    agreement to organize local constitutional self government
    through the P.L. 600 procedure to which both parties consented.
        Contrary to what has been asserted for forty years by those
    who seek to deny both the U.S. and the people of the right to
    further self determination, the agreement ``in the nature of a
    compact'' related to the process of approval of the
    constitution by joint consent and did not convert the
    relationship into a permanent form of union that can be altered
    only by ``mutual consent.'' Those who espouse that ideological
    doctrine do not want the people of the U.S. as a whole, or the
    people of Puerto Rico in their own name and right, to have a
    choice to change the current status.
        This attempt to convert the commonwealth structure for
    local self-government into a political status straight-jacket
    for Puerto Rico has become an impediment to completion of the
    decolonization process that began in 1952. The adoption of
    local constitutional self government at that time was a
    historically significant stage in the decolonization process,
    but it was not intended to be the final stage. Those who argue
    that the current status is the best that the U.S. and Puerto
    Rico can do merely usurp the power and diminish the meaning of
    the local constitution as an instrument through which the
    continuing right of self-determination can be redeemed.
        Indeed, adoption of a local constitution in 1952 was
    historic because it enabled the people of Puerto Rico to act in
    their own name and right as to the internal affairs of the
    territory, as well as in legal and political relations with the
    national government. This, of course, was on the basis of U.S.
    sovereignty and within the framework of our American system of
    constitutional federalism, meaning that Congress retained its
    territorial clause authority and responsibility until the
    decolonization process commenced in 1952 was fulfilled through
    statehood or separate nationhood for Puerto Rico.
        Through the institutions of internal self-government
    established in 1952 Puerto Ricans were empowered, among other
    things, freely to express their wishes regarding a permanent
    and fully self governing political status. Thus, establishment
    of the ``Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'' structure for local
    constitutional self-government in 1952 was a great democratic
    self-determination accomplishment, one which afforded the
    residents of the territory the ability to govern their own
    internal affairs and achieve an ultimate status consistent with
    a recognized form of full self-government through informed self
    determination.
        That this decolonization process would be fulfilled in
    accordance with the U.S. federal constitutional process was
    entirely consistent with the continuation of U.S. sovereignty,
    nationality and citizenship in Puerto Rico as provided under
    the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved by
    Congress and with the consent of the people in 1952. Indeed, in
    1953 the U.S. circulated to the General Assembly of the United
    nations a written legal statement which informed Puerto Rico
    and that world that under the commonwealth structure of local
    self-government Puerto Rico was subject to ``...compliance with
    the applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the
    Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress
    authorizing and approving the Constitution [of Puerto Rico], as
    may be interpreted by judicial decision.''
        On that basis, the U.N. General Assembly accepted the U.S.
    decision to cease reporting to the U.N. on the status of Puerto
    Rico. See, G.A. Resolution 748 (VIII), September 27, 1953. The
    Committee on Resources documented these matter quite thoroughly
    in House Report 104 713, Part 1, so I will not elaborate
    further here.
        However, the attempt of some Puerto Rican leaders and
    political groups to create ``bilateralism'' within the U.S.
    federal system has been perpetrated under a ``nation-within-a-
    nation'' interpretation of the commonwealth structure of local
    constitutional self-government which must fail.
        That doctrine of an illusory bilateralism between the
    people of Puerto Rico and the larger national community is the
    product of tortured intellectualism which has been harnessed in
    service to paternalistic and anti-democratic attitudes. Those
    who do not trust the people, or do not want them to have a free
    choice, have used the myth of an ``unalterable bilateral pact''
    to perpetuate their own power and prevent the decolonization
    process from being fulfilled.
        Having been involved in the question of Puerto Rico's
    status for many years as a Member of Congress, I continue to
    study developments in the relationship with keen interest. My
    sense is that with the end of the Cold War and the demise of
    the command economics-social engineering policies epitomized by
    the Section 936 tax credit provisions, the time for completion
    of the decolonization process for Puerto Rico finally is at
    hand.
        For so many years it seemed that those who sought
    fulfillment of the promise of self-determination might never
    overcome the influence of those whose economic and political
    power was derived from the ``invisible'' colonialism of the
    Section 936 tax credit regime. However, the neo-colonialist
    nature of that political-economic model was revealed when
    Congress exercised its territorial clause power to unilaterally
    eliminate one of the pillars of the ``unalterable bilateral
    pact'' ideology.
        No one can take any personal pleasure whatsoever in the
    disillusionment of all those honest and patriotic Puerto Rican
    born Americans who were misled into believing in the
    revisionist interpretation of commonwealth. It is no
    coincidence, though, that the advocates of the mythological
    version of commonwealth in many cases also profited from it.
    For those who chose self-interest over self determination for
    their own fatherland, the path to redemption and reconciliation
    is to choose one of the legitimate paths to full self
    government as defined in H.R. 856.
        In this regard, I recently was told of the article in El
    Nuevo Dia which quoted former Governor Hernandez Colon as
    comparing Resources Committee Chairman Don Young to the Spanish
    General Palacio, who was described in the article as a tyrant
    who inflicted brutality on the people of Puerto Rico. The
    occasion of the former Governor's remarks was the 107th
    birthday of Roman Baldotioty de Castro, who espoused autonomy
    for Puerto Rico.
        This causes me to ask, who is the oppressor? Who are the
    victims?
        During the 1996 elections, Mr. Hernandez Colon told the
    people that the election should be viewed as a referendum on
    the Young bill, and that the voters should support candidates
    who stood with him in defense of the bilateral pact doctrine.
    By historic margins the voters elected candidates who are
    willing to roll up their shirt sleeves and work with Congress
    to forge acceptable self-determination legislation based on the
    Young bill--without pandering to those who will not recognize
    that the ``unalterable bilateral pact'' doctrine has been
    discredited ethically as well as politically.
        Who, then, is seeking social justice and self-determination
    by the truest course? Who seeks most directly and without
    device or presupposition to empower the people of Puerto Rico
    to achieve decolonization? Who accepts the verdict of the
    people and who resists the democratically expressed will of the
    voters?
        It is one of the confirming symptoms of prolonged albeit
    benevolent colonialism that those who thrived financially or
    wielded great power under the less than fully self-governing
    status develop elaborate theories to justify the continuation
    of that status. Thus, a whole host of lesser known commentators
    have become the spin doctors of commonwealth, administering
    almost daily doses of the tortured logic of the bilateral pact
    theory of ``autonomy.''
        What would Luis Munoz Marin do if he were alive today? What
    about Roman Baldotoity de Castro? Would they turn their backs
    on a U.S. Congressman who thinks it is time for Puerto Rico and
    Congress to determine if Puerto Rico should become a state on
    the basis of equality or a nation based on separate
    sovereignty? Would they insist on a form of ``autonomy'' that
    does not protect the rights or the dignity of the people of
    Puerto Rico?
        Has ``autonomy'' as Mr. Hernandez Colon defines it become
    the enemy of the people's inherent sovereignty and their right
    to make a choice between equal citizenship or separate
    nationality? Has the vision of Mr. Munoz Marin which started
    the process of decolonization in 1952 been hijacked by those
    who can not believe the hour has come to fulfill that vision?
        Are the apologists, protectors and defenders of the
    accommodations made to colonial realities in the name of
    ``autonomy'' in 1952 so completely beguiled by their own
    rationalizations for the current status that they are resisting
    completion of the decolonization process now that the it is
    possible to do what could not be done in 1952?
        Who is really playing the role of Palacio in this more
    enlightened era? Who seeks to retain power at the expense of
    liberty?
        Who is withholding the keys to freedom from the people? Who
    is telling them that what they have is the best they can hope
    for? Who is telling them that waiting for the political elite
    to bestow enhancements is safer for the people than taking
    control of their own destiny?
        Who are the victims of the bilateral pact myth? Who was
    diverted from the path to decolonization by the schizophrenic
    doctrine that gave the current status one name in Washington
    and another in San Juan?
        The answers to these questions are now self-evident. We all
    were victims, even as we all were beneficiaries in some degree.
    However, for the people of Puerto Rico and the nation as a
    whole the point of diminishing returns on our political,
    economic and social investment in ``commonwealth'' was reached
    even before Section 936 was repealed.
        It is just as self-evident that statehood, if chosen freely
    by the people in a legitimate act of self-determination, is not
    a form of ``annexation.'' Similarly, living under the false
    doctrine of empowerment which is not recognized or respected by
    the colonial power is not ``autonomy.''
        Rather, statehood is just as valid, ethical and patriotic
    way to sustain the individual and collective dignity and
    identity of the people of Puerto Rico as separate nationality.
        The love which people born in Puerto Rico have for patria
    pueblo can be expressed through either statehood or nationhood.
    If the U.S. Congress is ready to recognize that reality, why
    are some in Puerto Rico unwilling to do so?

        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to
    submit the comments of Former Governor Hernandez Colon.
        The Chairman. Without objection, it will be submitted for
    the record.
        [The statement of Mr. Colon may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Lagomarsino served on this Committee as
    Ranking Republican on territorial issues for a decade and dealt
    with insular issues for almost 20 years and was intimately
    involved with Puerto Rico's political status.
        In reviewing Mr. Lagomarsino's statement, one should
    remember he introduced legislation in 1988 authorizing a
    referendum on Puerto Rica's political status and was heavily
    criticized by some for raising what many considered to be a
    very difficult issue that should be left alone. The only
    hearing on Lagomarsino's Puerto Rico political status
    referendum legislation in the 100th Congress was a forum in the
    Capitol sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond and former Senator
    Spark Matsunaga.
        However, Bob Lagomarsino's foresight and leadership
    regarding Puerto Rico's political status was affirmed the next
    year in 1989 when President Bush asked the Congress in his
    first State of the Union address to authorize a referendum on
    Puerto Rico's political status. In addition, a number of the
    same voices who criticized Lagomarsino's 1988 call for a
    referendum on Puerto Rico's political status began early in
    1989 to urge the Congress to pass a bill for a federally
    authorized status referendum.
        However, no Puerto Rico political status legislation was
    enacted into law during President Bush's term in office. That
    was in spite of tremendous efforts by individuals like Bob
    Lagomarsino, who of course was in the Minority at that time,
    and many others on both sides of the aisle in the Capitol.
        The 1989 to 1991 legislative initiatives of the House and
    Senate to resolve Puerto Rico's political status were
    unsuccessful primarily because they did too little or required
    too much.
        In contrast, I believe the three-stage process in the
    United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act provides a
    manageable and practical approach to resolving Puerto Rico's
    political status. Budgetary, legal, political concerns are
    dealt with as necessary in the appropriate stages of the
    process and are consistent with past precedents of the United
    States in dealing with the evolution of ter-

    ritories to permanent forms of full self-government. Perhaps
    most importantly, the legislation incorporates the principles
    of self-determination for the United States and Puerto Rico, as
    both the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico must approve of
    each stage in order for the political status process to
    advance.
        In 1998, we will observe the 100th anniversary of the
    United States administration of Puerto Rico. During this
    century, the residents of Puerto Rico and the United States
    have enjoyed the benefits of U.S. sovereignty and nationality
    in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory, including
    increasing levels of self-government and statutory U.S.
    citizenship since 1917.
        However, the time has come to complete the self-
    determination process so that a recognized form of full self-
    government can be established for the islands. The degree of
    local constitutional self-government established under Federal
    law in 1952 has allowed the Federal-territorial relationship to
    evolve, but it can't be sustained forever in the absence of an
    informed act of self-determination in which the options are
    defined accurately.
        Currently, Puerto Rico remains in political, but not
    permanent, union with the United States and is governed under
    the territorial clause authority of Congress defined in article
    IV, section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Surely after
    a hundred years of U.S. sovereignty Congress also has the
    responsibility under the territorial clause to define the terms
    under which it would be willing to bring the 3.8 million U.S.
    citizens of Puerto Rico into the more perfect State of the
    Union enjoyed by the citizens of territories which have
    achieved statehood such as Alaska and Hawaii.
        Similarly, Congress has a responsibility to define the
    basis upon which it would approve termination of Puerto Rico's
    territorial status in favor of separate nationhood as an
    independent country or a separate sovereign in free association
    with the United States. Only when these options for full self-
    government--as Congress is willing to consider them--have been
    accurately defined can the people make an informed choice.
        The current process and status definitions embodied in the
    United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is a result of
    the record established in the last Congress through hearings in
    Washington, D.C. on October 17, 1995, and in San Juan, Puerto
    Rico, on March 23, 1996, as well as the deliberative process of
    subcommittee and Committee actions during the balance of 1996.
    These cumulative efforts resulted in the legislation being
    placed on the Union Calendar at the end of the 104th Congress
    and the introduction of an updated U.S.-Puerto Rico Political
    Status Act, H.R. 4281, which served as the basis for and with
    text identical to the that of the current H.R. 856.
        The year of 1997 is the year to act, to empower the people
    of Puerto Rico in 1998 to choose their final political status
    destiny. No more excuses and delays to the resolution of Puerto
    Rico's political status. Puerto Rico has demonstrated the
    ability to function democratically under local constitutional
    self-government for 45 years. Even more significantly, the
    people of Puerto Rico have overwhelmingly and loyally supported
    this Nation in every armed conflict with enormous personal
    sacrifice for nearly a century. They have earned the right many
    times over to seek separate nationality and citizenship or full
    and guaranteed U.S. citizenship as a permanent part of the
    United States.
        Now we have a moral obligation to deliver, finally, to the
    Americans of Puerto Rico the blessings of liberty and democracy
    which General Miles proclaimed to have brought upon arrival of
    the United States in Puerto Rico in 1898. This can be
    accomplished through a federally authorized status referendum
    in 1998 as provided in the United States-Puerto Rico Political
    Status Act, H.R. 856.
        I am very proud to be the cosponsor of this legislation
    along with Mr. Miller.
        I yield to him for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the
    record, and I will yield to Carlos Romero-Barcelo of San Juan
    for the purpose of an opening statement, and then my
    understanding is we will go to the questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

     Statement of Hon. George Miller, a U.S. Representative from California

        We are here this morning to receive testimony from the
    three political parties in Puerto Rico as well as the
    Administration regarding H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto
    Rico Political Status Act.
        This issue and its resolution is of great importance not
    only to the 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico but to All
    of us as Americans. It tells us that this Congress has a moral
    obligation to seriously consider all aspects surrounding
    status. This bill will mandate that a vote be taken in one
    year's time to decide a political status option for the future.
    The options in the bill are between the current status of
    commonwealth, admittance into the union as the 51st state, or
    an independent nation.
        This is not a symbolic exercise. We can not demand a vote
    by Federal law and then refuse to carry out the wishes of the
    voters. If you are not willing to offer commonwealth,
    statehood, or independence, then we must not proceed further
    with this bill. To the voters of Puerto Rico I pledge that I
    will do all that I can to make sure that what is written into
    law will become reality if you so chose and within a reasonable
    transition period.
        As many of you know I was not a cosponsor of similar
    legislation last year, I am however, a cosponsor of H.R. 856
    because important changes have been made. A major concern is
    that the political parties have the opportunity to submit what
    they believe to be appropriate definitions for their status
    option. A request went out from Chairman Young and myself, and
    I expect to see definitions at the end of the month. These will
    be given serious consideration and Congress will ultimately
    determine the definitions.
        During the hearing and mark up process, I will address the
    transition time frame for I believe the ``minimum of 10 years''
    now in the bill is far too long. The voters of Puerto Rico
    deserve to know that we are serious in offering this status
    plebiscite, and that the transition to a new status, should
    that be chosen, will occur expeditiously.
        I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman Young and
    Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcello for keeping this
    important issue before us. I also serve on the Economic and
    Education Opportunities Committee with Carlos where he has
    taught me much about the way education programs are extended in
    Puerto Rico.
        I thank all those here this morning and look forward to
    what I'm sure will be a lively and enlightening debate.

        The Chairman. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, A U.S. RESIDENT
                     COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. This morning I got up and looked out
    the window and saw it was snowing; and I commented to my wife,
    joking, perhaps that this was an omen to have a hearing on the
    status of Puerto Rico.
        I would like to begin my remarks today by commending you,
    Mr. Chairman, for your initiative in scheduling this hearing of
    H.R. 856, the United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act,
    and for your commitment to the force of government in ending
    the disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of
    Puerto Rico.
        I want to thank our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Miller,
    for his efforts to have the opportunity to decide freely,
    without ambiguity and decisively what the island's political
    relationship with the 50 States should be. The leadership on
    this issue has been instrumental in allowing us to reach the
    point where we are today.
        Last, but not least, I want to publicly thank the 80
    Members from Congress on both sides of the aisle who
    cosponsored this legislation. Their support is certainly
    appreciated and needed.
        Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, it was almost 100 years
    ago that in 1898 Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States
    at the end of the Spanish-American war. In 1917, Puerto Ricans
    became U.S. citizens, a citizenship we have cherished and
    valued ever since and a citizenship that we have defended with
    our lives and with our blood.
        Then, in 1952, the island adopted a local Constitution and
    gave us a name of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a purely
    cosmetic change that did not in any way affect the island's
    status as an unincorporated territory of the United States,
    subject to the authority and powers of Congress under the
    territorial clause of the Constitution. In international terms,
    Puerto Rico remained a colony.
        Many of the advocates for commonwealth have testified in
    the congressional hearing on March 4, 1950, that the proposed
    changes to the island's status, quote, ``did not change the
    fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico's nonincorporation and
    only permitted Puerto Rico to develop its own self-
    government.''
        Since that moment, a former Chief Judge of the Supreme
    Court and member of the Puerto Rico Constitutional Assembly and
    one of the legal architects of the Commonwealth commented, even
    after 1952, Puerto Rico clearly continued suffering colonial
    status; and he said Puerto Ricans have the distinction of
    having the longest history of colonialism in the whole world.
    What a sad distinction to be commended.
        There is a famous Chinese saying that a journey of a
    thousand miles must begin with a single step. But to reach the
    destination a traveler must be headed in the right direction.
        H.R. 856 is not only the most important step we have taken
    in this journey to resolve the disenfranchisement of the
    citizens of Puerto Rico, it is also the first measure affecting
    self-determination to come before the House since the Alaska
    and Hawaii admission acts of the 1950's.
        I have devoted most of my adult life to leading my people
    in this long journey. As former Mayor of San Juan, Puerto
    Rico's capital city, Governor and now Member of Congress, I
    have heard my peo-

    ple's voices and shared their dreams and aspirations. These
    voices resonate loudly in the island, although to most
    Americans living in the continental United States they might
    seem as distant echoes, reflecting the deep unease and
    disenchantment with the current relationship that would deny
    them equal treatment in Federal education programs that they
    desperately need to succeed in today's competitive world.
        Young couples ask me why they have to move to the States in
    order to search for opportunities that are not available in
    Puerto Rico.
        Veterans who have fought in all of the Nation's wars in
    this century ask me why they cannot vote for the President
    that, as commander-in-chief, may tomorrow also send sons and
    daughters to fight and die. The elderly ask about support
    programs that are less than if they resided in New York,
    Illinois, California, Florida, or any State of the Union.
        I have heard a mother ask why her son died in Vietnam and
    gave his life for a country that denies her and her
    grandchildren the right to participate on equal terms.
        The answer to these questions is clear. We are unequals
    because we are not partners. We are unequals because we are
    submerged in a colonial relationship in which our economic,
    social and political affairs are controlled to a large degree
    by a government in which we have no voting influence and in
    which we do not participate.
        We are unequals because we cannot vote for the President of
    the Nation of which we are citizens and because we do not have
    a proportional voting representation in the Congress that
    determines the rules under which we conduct our daily lives and
    the rules that influence and determine our future.
        Mr. Chairman, this great Nation of ours, the example and
    inspiration of democracy throughout the world, inspiration in
    the peaceful revolt in Tiananmen Square and the revolt of
    Poland against Communism, revolt in Russia, the Soviet Union
    against Communism and other nations of Eastern Europe and
    throughout the world, cannot continue to uphold a policy that
    denies political participation and disenfranchises 3.8 million
    of its own citizens. We cannot continue to hide our heads in
    the sand like ostriches and pretend nothing is happening. The
    lives and well-being of 3.8 million U.S. citizens is at stake
    here. Their dignity and democratic heritage is the issue.
        I am encouraged by the fact that we have been able to
    gather so much bipartisan support for this legislation in so
    little time. As a matter of fact, Senators Bob Graham and
    Senator Larry Craig will introduce a similar version of this
    bill later. The initial support in the Senate seems to be
    growing, to be as strong and bipartisan here in the House.
        Mr. Chairman, we are more than halfway through the 1990's,
    a decade that the United Nations General Assembly declared to
    be the international decade for the eradication of colonialism.
    Next year, Puerto Rico will commemorate 100 years as a U.S.
    colony. Should we celebrate or should we mourn? Will we see a
    silver lining in the sky by 1998 or will we be seeing more of
    the same?
        The United States cannot seek to promote and at times
    enforce democracy elsewhere in the world while it relegates 3.8
    million of its own citizens to an indefinite second-class
    status, disenfranchised, discriminated against and unable to
    exercise the most basic right in a democracy, the right to vote
    and participate in its government. To ignore the situation in
    Puerto Rico is to betray the spirit of our democratic values
    and heritage.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel honored with having the opportunity to
    find myself in the center of this important process. Once
    again, I want to thank you for your lead and your vision in
    filing this bill and for holding this hearing. And I look
    forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for your
    eloquent statement.
        At this time, I would like to call the first panel up.
        For the other members, your statements, by unanimous
    consent, will be submitted for the record at this time, because
    I have--in all due respects, I wanted to try to get this thing
    moving along because of the other members--we may have a vote
    here after while.
        The Honorable Dan Burton, Luis Gutierrez, Bill McCollum,
    Jose Serrano, Peter Deutsch, Nydia Velazquez. They all are
    there? Everybody there but Dan Burton. All right.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Miller. I would ask unanimous consent that at the end
    of their testimony those members of this panel who desire to
    sit with the Committee be allowed to do so. I know some of them
    have scheduling conflicts, but some of them expressed a desire
    to do to.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        Luis, I believe we will go right down the line, if we can
    do that, in the way I called you out. Dan Burton is not here,
    so we will go with you first.
        Mr. Gutierrez. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. You are up.

     STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS GUTIERREZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                ILLINOIS

        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
    Young, Congressman Miller, distinguished colleagues,
    distinguished witnesses, I wish to begin by expressing my
    sincere gratitude to Chairman Young and the members of the
    Committee for allowing me the opportunity to participate in
    this hearing today. In a democratic society, we must allow for
    differences of opinion, even strong differences of opinion, to
    be truly expressed and freely discussed in search of truth.
        As a Member of Congress of Puerto Rican origin, and as a
    Member of Congress with a large Puerto Rican constituency, I
    feel it is my duty to participate in the discussion about the
    future of Puerto Rico and the future relationship of Puerto
    Rico and the United States. The outcome of these discussions
    will directly affect the lives of many of my constituents.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor for Puerto Rico
    the status we in this country celebrate every 4th of July, the
    status that allows us to enjoy the benefits of our
    Constitution, that allowed us to write and to adopt our own
    Constitution in the first place, the status we have enshrined
    in the Declaration of Independence, the status of independence,
    the inalienable right of all people on earth.
        I also fully respect yet another inalienable right, the
    right of a people to self-determination. Therefore, I have
    never sought to impose my views on the people of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Chairman, the time to resolve the colonial situation of
    Puerto Rico is now. The time for decisive action on this matter
    is long overdue. This is a situation that should never have
    arisen.
        In 1898 American troops invaded Puerto Rico, a non-
    combatant in the Spanish-American War. This could have been
    done in the long-held American anti-colonial tradition, to rid
    the island of any Spanish military and turn the island over to
    its rightful owners, the Puerto Rican people. Unfortunately,
    the United States not only invaded Puerto Rico, it occupied it
    and annexed it.
        In 1917, while saying that this action did not constitute
    an offer of statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. granted U.S.
    citizenship to Puerto Ricans. You know only too well the rest
    of the story.
        Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask that the
    rest of my testimony be submitted for the record. I would just
    like to make the following points.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that as we enter this debate and
    discussion about a future Puerto Rico and its relationship to
    the United States we need to ensure that all the different
    political perspectives and parties and their opinions be
    offered full and fair consideration--and we need to ensure that
    we reach consensus, Mr. Chairman, so that no one feels that
    this process is a process which favors one status or political
    option over another as it is presented to the people of Puerto
    Rico.
        In that vein, Mr. Chairman, let me make a few suggestions.
    Number one, Mr. Chairman, I think that if Puerto Rico has a
    colonial relationship with the United States and you are going
    to go into a process of decolonization, then we must
    distinguish between American citizenship, which was offered to
    the people of Puerto Rico and granted to the people of Puerto
    Rico, and nationality. Who are the nationals of the island of
    Puerto Rico? Who are the nationals of Puerto Rico?
        Let me suggest that because there is a colonial situation,
    that we should do everything possible, Mr. Chairman, to insure
    that all of the nationals, whether they happen to reside on the
    island of Puerto Rico or whether they reside in the continental
    United States be offered the opportunity--all Puerto Ricans be
    offered the opportunity to participate fully, and to vote in
    any process of plebiscite to solve the colonial status of
    Puerto Rico. And let me quickly suggest a quick definition of
    who qualifies as a Puerto Rican national. Those who were born
    on the island of Puerto Rico and the immediate children of
    those born on the island of Puerto Rico.
        I think later on you will hear testimony that will be
    supportive of that definition, because we have a continuing
    migration in Puerto Rico to the island and back. Mr. Chairman,
    I lived on the island of Puerto Rico when my parents returned
    in 1969 after living 15 years in the United States. I returned
    there. I graduated from high school there. I went to college
    there. I returned there once again, Mr. Chairman, to be married
    with my wife Soraida 19 years ago.
        So I too have been going back and forth and back and forth.
    Many Puerto Ricans do that, Mr. Chairman, and many of us are
    interested in being able to participate in deciding the future
    of Puerto Rico.
        Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if we leave it as it is today,
    everybody who goes to Puerto Rico 70 days before the plebiscite
    could register to vote and participate and then leave the
    island anytime thereafter. I think we should look for a more
    expanded franchise, Mr. Chairman, that will allow more of us to
    participate.
        Because of the limitation of time, Mr. Chairman, let me
    just say the following. I think that Don Luis A. Ferre, who was
    here, who has fought valiantly and with distinction for
    statehood for Puerto Rico, should be allowed to see the day
    when Puerto Rico--when there is a vote before this Congress
    should the people of Puerto Rico so request statehood, where he
    can see that day where it is admitted as a State. Let us not
    wait ten years after such a vote. Justice delayed is justice
    denied for Luis A. Ferre and for any of the proponents of any
    of the different options.
        Let us offer the people of Puerto Rico not another opinion
    poll so that we can gauge their sentiment. We think we know
    what their sentiments are on the different status options, Mr.
    Chairman, so I respectfully say to you, Mr. Chairman, and the
    members of this Committee let us make the result of the vote
    self-executing. Let us have respect for the people of Puerto
    Rico. Let us have respect, Mr. Chairman, for our fine
    institution, the Congress of the United States. And should
    statehood win or independence win or free association win, that
    those things can be executed.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow 30 additional
    seconds more, unanimous consent for 30 seconds, I just want to
    quickly speak about independence, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that if we are going to be fair and we are going to
    live in the 21st Century, let us give them, the
    independentistas from Puerto Rico, an option that is not
    burdened, Mr. Chairman, an option that they can go and promote
    among the Puerto Rican people that is not burdened, an option
    that says, you know, maybe Luis's mom and dad and Nydia's mom
    and dad in Puerto Rico can still come to the United States of
    America should there be independence, and maybe they can
    continue to have their citizenship and their rights and their
    Social Security and their military benefits, because they
    fought for them, Mr. Chairman, and they gained them rightfully
    so, and other kinds of economics so that we can build a
    cooperation between an independent Puerto Rico and the United
    States.
        I would like to see an independent Puerto Rico, Mr.
    Chairman, that lives in peace and in harmony and in unity with
    the United States of America. And we should offer them such an
    option that they can go to the people of Puerto Rico and raise
    it among them.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your indulgence. And I
    submit my complete statement for the record.
        [Statement of Hon. Luis Gutierrez may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Luis, very well done. Bill
    McCollum.
        Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
    like to request unanimous consent that my statement be
    submitted for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. McCollum. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                FLORIDA

        Mr. McCollum. I have to follow a very eloquent statement by
    a native of--at least a person who has a generation going back
    to Puerto Rico and has the immediate blood connection that I do
    not have, but I have a great interest in this bill. As you
    know, I am an original cosponsor.
        I have a very large number of constituents in my district.
    I have perhaps the second largest, something of that nature,
    number of Puerto Ricans in my Congressional district. And I
    have spent a lot of time discussing this issue of statehood,
    independence, and commonwealth with them. I have heard their
    views. I have been to Puerto Rico. I am going down there again
    on April 3 to hold a drug hearing because I am Chairman of the
    Crime Subcommittee, and the drug issue is very important to the
    people of Puerto Rico, as it is to all of us. So I have some
    views. And I just want to express them briefly.
        First of all, I think the idea of making this decision and
    doing it now as this bill that you produced describes and sets
    out is very important. It needs to be done. We need to let the
    people of Puerto Rico speak. It should be their voice. I for
    one believe that they will choose statehood when they vote, but
    they may not. It is their choice to at least give us their
    advice. If they do choose statehood, I think we should grant
    them that statehood, and I think it should be swift and there
    should not be a significant question about it. And there
    shouldn't be any question in their minds when they vote that
    that is the sentiment that most all of us have in Congress.
        Now when I say that I personally favor something, I want to
    make it very clear that this is not my choice. This is the
    choice of the Puerto Ricans, not Bill McCollum and not those of
    us who are from Florida or Minnesota or wherever. But there is
    an advantage to statehood, in my judgment. And let me describe
    a couple of the reasons why I think statehood would be an
    advantage to the Puerto Rican people.
        First of all, Puerto Rico is today part of the United
    States. The Puerto Rican culture is part of what is uniquely
    American. And I think it is understood innately by most of us,
    if not specifically. Yet without statehood, something is
    missing. Every school child in America is taught about the 50
    States. Sure there are the territories, but they are never
    firmly implanted in the mind of a young person as being
    integral to the whole as when thinking of the United States and
    each of the States.
        I personally want to see the day when every school child
    learns about 51 States and thinks of Puerto Rico as much a part
    of the American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico, in
    my judgment, will be stronger for this, and our nation will be
    stronger.
        Again, however, my opinion doesn't matter, and the
    plebiscite is the opinion of the people of Puerto Rico.
        And another area that I think that Puerto Rico would
    benefit from would be the economic area. I believe there will
    be an increase in investment and economic growth if Puerto Rico
    becomes a State.
        I think that such things as efforts to get support for
    fighting the war on drugs, which I have been engaged in for a
    lot of reasons, as well as the governor and the officials of
    Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican people, would be much easier
    in this Congress and with the Executive Branch of the
    government.
        No longer would some people think Puerto Rico simply is the
    gateway for drugs to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would
    think first, as they should now, of the horrors of the drug
    scourge on the people of Puerto Rico, equal partners in all we
    share and all we do as a nation.
        So I do have a strong opinion, but it is understood, in my
    mind, again, this is a judgment that should be made under this
    bill and would be between commonwealth, independence or
    statehood by the people of Puerto Rico.
        And one thing I want to add in this comment is something I
    am very strongly opposed to. I am very strongly opposed to any
    suggestion--and I have heard it made, not by the Chairman, but
    I have heard it made by other Members of Congress--I am
    strongly opposed to any suggestions that this bill be amended
    to include a condition of statehood on Puerto Rico for adopting
    English as its official language. It is a divisive and a
    destructive proposal.
        English, in my judgment, should be the official language of
    the United States, but no State, be that New York or California
    or Florida or Puerto Rico, should be singled out and told it
    must adopt English as its official language. When and if Puerto
    Rico become a State, if and when English becomes the official
    language of the United States, it will apply to all 51 States,
    to Puerto Rico just as well as everybody else.
        I believe the rights of the Puerto Ricans should be
    respected, the sovereign rights, just as we respect the
    sovereign rights of the other States of the Union and our
    territories.
        So those are my thoughts to you today, Mr. Chairman. I
    support the bill in its present form. I am sure it could be
    modified and improved in some ways, but let's get on with it.
    It is time for the people of Puerto Rico to get a chance to
    voice--one more time. And I believe this is a critical time and
    I believe that they will voice it in favor of statehood. And
    when they do, it is time to bring it back here and take that
    vote in this Congress that will ratify that and make Puerto
    Rico the 51st State.
        [Statement of Hon. Bill McCollum follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Bill McCollum, a U.S. Representative from Florida

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to give a statement as
    part of your hearings on H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto
    Rico Political Status Act. Chairman Young, I appreciate your
    efforts on behalf of this legislation and I am proud to be an
    original cosponsor. It is certainly my hope to see progress
    made on this legislation in the 105th Congress.
        I have a natural interest in Puerto Rico as there is a
    significant Puerto Rican community in my district. However, I
    have also had the opportunity to visit Puerto Rico in my
    capacity as the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee on drug
    interdiction matters. I will actually be returning to Puerto
    Rico in about a month for hearings with the Crime Subcommittee.
    Meeting people both in my district and in Puer-

    to Rico has given me the opportunity to hear many points of
    view on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood. Although there is
    a range of views, it is clear that we should allow the people
    of Puerto Rico to decide their fate.
        As we know, H.R. 856 would require a plebiscite in Puerto
    Rico where the people of Puerto Rico would have the ability to
    decide the future of their beautiful island. The choices would
    include Puerto Rican independence, U.S. statehood or
    maintaining the status quo of commonwealth government under the
    authority of the U.S. Congress. A clear majority, as opposed to
    only a plurality, would be needed for definitive action. If
    statehood or independence were chosen, Congress would then have
    to affirmatively enact legislation in order to pursue the
    option. If commonwealth status receives a majority, or if no
    majority is achieved, then the plebiscite is revisited four
    years later.
        Mr. Chairman, under a plebiscite conducted pursuant to this
    bill, I am convinced the people of Puerto Rico would choose
    statehood. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. For years
    the rich Puerto Rican culture has been part of what is uniquely
    American. Yet, without statehood, something is missing. Every
    school child in America is taught about the 50 states. Sure,
    there are territories, but they are never as firmly implanted
    in the mind as being integral to the whole when thinking of the
    United States. I want to see the day when every school child
    learns about 51 states and thinks Puerto Rico is as much a part
    of the American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico will
    be stronger for this. Our nation will be stronger. However, my
    opinion would not matter in the plebiscite and I believe the
    people of Puerto Rico need the option to choose.
        The commonwealth status was never intended to be a
    permanent status. I realize that some will try to claim
    otherwise, but I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, we must
    remain flexible in improving upon the status quo. If a majority
    of Puerto Ricans want statehood, then we should facilitate
    that.
        Certainly there is the possibility that the voters of
    Puerto Rico will choose to keep the commonwealth status. That
    is fine, and there will be chances in the future to change this
    decision, but the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    has been changing of late. It is time to reassess the wants and
    needs of the island, even if it is still the desire to remain a
    commonwealth.
        Assuming that statehood is the path chosen, I believe that
    Puerto Rico would enjoy increased investment and economic
    growth as investors would be assured of economic and political
    stability in the region. Under statehood, Puerto Ricans would
    be guaranteed all the rights, privileges and responsibilities
    of U.S. citizens. Furthermore, support for such efforts as
    fighting the war on drugs would be easier to achieve. No longer
    would some think of Puerto Rico simply as the gateway for drugs
    to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would think first (as
    they should now) of the horrors the drug scourge is bringing to
    the people of Puerto Rico--equal partners in all we share and
    all we do as a nation.
        Independence would not bring these gains, but there may be
    advantages that the people of Puerto Rico would rather have.
    Regardless, we need to work on this situation to bring
    resolution to the issue. Past plebiscites have not been
    especially helpful, mainly because the unconstitutional option
    of an enhanced commonwealth was offered. This time, a clear
    choice put to the voters in Puerto Rico should provide a clear
    result.
        One thing I strongly oppose, Mr. Chairman, is any amendment
    to this bill conditioning statehood on Puerto Rico adopting
    English as its official language. This is a divisive and
    destructive proposal. English should be the official language
    of the United States. But no state, be that New York,
    California, Florida or Puerto Rico, should be singled out and
    told it must adopt an official language. If and when Puerto
    Rico becomes a state, and if and when English becomes the
    official language of the federal government, it would apply in
    Puerto Rico, just as it is in the other 50 states. The
    sovereign rights of Puerto Ricans should be respected in the
    same manner as all states already admitted into the Union.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for the patience you
    have had with this legislation. I remember that things got a
    little difficult with it at the end of the 104th Congress when
    it looked like movement was possible. I strongly urge you to
    report H.R. 856 favorably to the full House in the very near
    future. I will give you my full support in getting it scheduled
    for House floor action. Again, thank you for holding these
    hearings.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Bill. I thank you--and again, an
    excellent job. I see we have been joined by Mr. Burton, and I
    know he has other things on his mind right now. Mr. Burton, if
    you would like to go forth, you have got five minutes.
        Mr. Burton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    apologize to my colleagues for interrupting these hearings. I
    will have a more complete statement I would like to submit for
    the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BURTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                INDIANA

        Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing
    me to testify regarding H.R. 856, The United States-Puerto Rico
    Political Status Act. As a senior member of the International
    Relations Committee, I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I have
    worked with Chairman Don Young and the Subcommittee Chairman
    Elton Gallegly to help them put together a fair and balanced
    bill. This bill is based on complete and open dialog with all
    the affected parties, and is the result of approximately 30
    changes, 30 changes, from H.R. 3024, which was introduced in
    the 104th Congress.
        The status quo in Puerto Rico cannot be maintained. The
    people of Puerto Rico have lived for far too long under a
    colonial status with second-class citizenship.
        This is not a statehood bill for Puerto Rico, as some
    people seem to believe. It is not a pro-independence bill. It
    is not a pro-commonwealth bill. This is a balanced bill that
    allows the Puerto Rican people to exercise their right to self-
    determination. It lets the people of Puerto Rico make an
    informed choice about their political future.
        We have compromised with all parties concerned by changing
    from a two-ballot format to a three-ballot format, thereby
    giving the citizens of Puerto Rico three options, namely
    statehood, separate sovereignty, and commonwealth, and giving
    the options equal positioning.
        I have concerns with this change, given the inherent legal
    differences among the three options. The purpose of the
    previous two-ballot format was to make certain the voters
    understood that two of the options were for a new and permanent
    status consistent with full self-determination.
        Those two options, statehood and separate sovereignty,
    would complete the decolonization process consistent with the
    commitments the United States made to the people of Puerto Rico
    and the United Nations when local constitutional government was
    established in 1952.
        The option to continue the current commonwealth structure
    of local government was presented separately on the ballot
    under H.R. 3024 because it is not a constitutionally guaranteed
    or permanent status. Therefore I am afraid it could be
    misleading to the voters to present the less than full self-
    governing commonwealth option as a co-equal status with the
    full integration or separate nationhood status.
        However, Mr. Young listened to the concerns of the
    political leaders of all parties in Puerto Rico, as well as the
    concerns of his colleagues in the Congress, and granted the
    change from a two to a three-ballot format. This example of
    leadership and show of good faith has not been reciprocated by
    opponents of this legislation. Disingenuousness, deception and
    in some cases outright falsehoods continue in their rhetoric
    and in their deeds.
        This is unfortunate, because it only adds confusion to the
    issue. This confusion has disenfranchised voters and has
    delayed the process of Puerto Rican self-determination.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to end with the following
    observation. I have intentionally not publicly advocated for a
    particular outcome with respect to Puerto Rican status. My
    strong belief in a free people exercising their right to self-
    determination remains unwavering. The complexities of the
    history and uniqueness of the island of Puerto Rico do not
    change that fundamental belief. The citizens of Puerto Rico
    should have their day at the ballot box without duress and
    without any impediment to their ability to act out their own
    collective will.
        Puerto Rican people also have a great responsibility in
    understanding their options and choosing the option they most
    agree with. They need to understand that there is no free
    lunch.
        If they choose independence, the United States will deal
    with them as a partner in peace and a strong ally. If they
    choose statehood, we will add another star to our flag and
    welcome them officially as an equal partner into the greatest
    union known in the history of mankind. But keep in mind that
    with that benefit comes a great responsibility. If the Puerto
    Rican people choose to maintain commonwealth status, turning
    away from self-rule, we as a Congress will maintain the supreme
    administrative control of the island.
        These are the options for the citizens of Puerto Rico to
    choose from. We as a Congress must facilitate the process in a
    fair manner. That is exactly what H.R. 856 seeks to accomplish
    and is why I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the bill.
        Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the
    opportunity to testify today before you and the Resources
    Committee.
        [Statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:] ???
        The Chairman. Thank you, Dan. And I appreciate your showing
    up, even if you are late. I know you have got a lot more
    responsibilities.
        Jose Serrano, New York.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE SERRANO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
                                  YORK

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
    I want to thank you and commend you for your work on this bill.
    I want to commend my colleague George Miller, the ranking
    member of the Committee, for his work and for his support.
        The reason I support this bill, Mr. Chairman, is because I
    believe that this bill brings about what needs to be brought
    about, a legislative confrontation between Puerto Rico and the
    Congress of the United States, a legislative confrontation that
    will allow the people of Puerto Rico to fully understand
    whether in fact the United States is willing to take them in as
    a State or whether it wishes to begin a process to let them go
    as an independent nation.
        It is interesting to know that since 1898 that question has
    truly never been asked in Puerto Rico. We were not asked, as
    Mr. Gutierrez said, whether we wanted to be part of this
    country. We were simply invaded. And that invasion is the
    longest running invasion in the world at this moment. It has
    gone on 99 years.
        In 1952, the people in Puerto Rico were asked do you want
    to become a commonwealth, or do you want to stay the way you
    are. I was seven years old and I could have answered that
    question. That was an easy one then. The question now is: in
    today's world, does the United States want to continue to ask
    that question, or do our Congress and our government want in
    fact to say to Puerto Rico what they are saying to the world?
    Do we really have the ability to continue to preach political
    changes and changes in government and in systems and in
    approaches in the world if we will not allow the people of
    Puerto Rico the opportunity to talk about their future?
        Now, I have been criticized for being very clear, I think,
    on what I think the future should be. The future should be a
    change from the present. The present status, to me, is
    unacceptable. The present status perhaps at one time served a
    purpose, an economic purpose, a political purpose. At one time
    it was the only game in town.
        The world has changed and this Congress has changed, and
    that is, perhaps, why you are sponsoring this bill, because
    this Congress has changed in some ways over times.
        I believe that Puerto Rico is a colony. I didn't arrive at
    the usage of that word lightly. I wasn't raised in a family of
    ``populares'', people who believed in Luis Munoz Marin, but
    then there are people sitting behind me who are
    ``independentistas'' who come from families of statehooders.
    And there are people who are ``estadolibristas'' who come from
    families of ``independentistas''. And so it is our situation in
    Puerto Rico and throughout this nation.
        I believe Puerto Rico is a colony for a very simple reason
    that I always attribute to my relationship with my own family.
    I have cousins in Mayaguez and in Bayamon who cannot vote for a
    Member of Congress, who cannot vote for a President, who have
    nothing to say about the way this country treats them. On the
    other hand, they can't a establish relationship with Columbia
    or Cuba tomorrow morning or refuse to go to war or trade with
    Mexico on their own. They can't invite the Japanese in to do
    anything that they might want to do because we don't allow it.
        Therefore, if they are not free to be a sovereign nation
    and they are not equal as a State, there is only one thing left
    to be, and that is a colony. We may deny it. It is good
    politics for us to deny it, but that is the truth. That is the
    case.
        Now if we take the 1993 results, which we will hear a lot
    about here today, and say there was a vote in '93 that was for
    commonwealth, well, let me say two things. First of all, no
    option got a majority, and the options were independence,
    statehood or a different, enhanced form of the current
    commonwealth status. Well, on the island I could have voted for
    either of the three, because it was a change from the present.
    My point is that everyone who participated in the '93
    plebescite in Puerto Rico voted for a change. No one voted for
    the status quo. So I feel that it would be a problem for us,
    although we may do it, to present to the people of Puerto Rico
    the status quo, because I think the status quo is colonial in
    nature and therefore improper for us to present.
        Some may think this is too extreme, but when Lincoln was
    trying to deal with the issue of emancipation, I don't think
    slavery was an option on the table. Either doing nothing or
    emancipating, but not reaffirming the present situation at that
    time. I don't think this Congress should reaffirm the present
    status in any way, shape, or form. And I believe that the
    people who support the present status with changes, should
    present before this Congress a separate status which would
    include the changes, but not the present status with changes,
    because the present status is what it is.
        I also want to commend the authors of this bill, because if
    and when this bill passes, you will have accomplished something
    that many of us have wanted to see for years. You will have
    stated in legal terms Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S.
    And that is a major victory for all of us who have felt that
    the present status in fact, is colonial in nature.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I come before you today in the
    hope that we can in fact pass this bill, that we can have this
    vote on the island, that as we mark 100 years since the
    invasion we get the results from that vote and Congress speaks.
        I realize that the independence people are very courageous.
    They are only have four percent, five, six percent of the vote.
    They will bet that statehood will never be an acceptable option
    for this Congress and they are willing to go to the mat on this
    one.
        The statehooders are very courageous, too, because they
    will take all the heat, all the accusations about what
    statehood will mean to the culture and the language on the
    island.
        I hope everybody else becomes courageous and understands
    that a change is necessary.
        Let me end with this point. Many of you, if not all of you,
    know that I am a very outspoken critic of our policy in Latin
    America, especially toward Cuba. I believe that our country no
    longer has any moral grounds to demand elections in any country
    as long as it won't allow a simple election like a plebiscite
    in Puerto Rico. We may not have the moral grounds any longer to
    demand political changes anywhere if we continue to hold a
    colony in the Caribbean in 1997.
        I was born on the island. I came to the U.S. because of the
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States, which
    the created economic situation which sent many of us away from
    home. That is why since 1990 I have said that those who were
    born on the island and those who are children of people born on
    the island should be allowed to vote on this. Not for governor,
    not for mayor, not for sheriff or any other position they may
    create in the future, but to determine the future of the
    country. And if not, at the minimum respect that migration by
    not allowing anyone who was not born on the island of Puerto
    Rican parents to vote in the plebiscite.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Statement of Hon. Jose Serrano follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Jose E. Serrano, a U.S. Representative from New York

        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee and
    fellow Puerto Ricans who will later address this Committee:
        I want to commend Chairman Don Young, and Ranking Member
    George Miller and all the members of this Committee for the
    bipartisan effort to develop and consider this important
    legislation. Today is a hopeful day in the history of the
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Today
    we once again begin in this House the formal proceedings to
    establish a process leading to full self-government for Puerto
    Rico.
        Thank you for considering an issue that is of critical
    importance. As one of the original cosponsors of this bill, I
    come before you today to speak in support of legislation that
    is very important to me both as a Puerto Rican, and as a
    citizen of this Nation. This Act provides to the Puerto Rican
    people a right that we as Americans cherish dearly and seek to
    share with peoples around the word--the fundamental right of
    self-determination.
        Ever since Puerto Rico became a part of the United States
    after the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Puerto Rican people
    have had a dual identity--they are an island nationality in the
    Caribbean, and a component of the American nation. Although we
    have been in this relationship for 99 years, the fact remains
    that Puerto Ricans did not choose to become part of the United
    States. For better or worse, the incorporation of Puerto Rico
    in the United States was unilaterally imposed.
        The people of Puerto Rico are citizens of this Nation by
    birth, and have fought and died in all the American wars of
    this century, from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. If
    these brave young men and women are important enough to serve
    our national interest, they surely are important enough to
    demand and receive the respect of this Congress in their
    pursuit of political self-determination.
        Out of self-respect, and out of respect for our cherished
    democratic principles, we must recognize the right of the
    people of Puerto Rico for self-determination. Otherwise, the
    basic tenets of our Nation have lost all real meaning.
        Today Puerto Rico is a colony. This means that we accord to
    Puerto Rico a citizenship with fewer attributes than that of
    other Americans. In addition, a colonial status lacks the
    ability to deal freely with other nations and to exercise full
    sovereignty. A quick study of this makes it clear that the
    Puerto Rican people are second class citizens. If I were to
    move tomorrow to the island, I would lose my right to vote in
    the election of the President of the United States, two U.S.
    senators and a voting Member of Congress. On the other hand,
    the government of Puerto Rico has no autonomy on international
    trade and immigration laws, and cannot refuse to go to war in
    the event the United States declares it. In other words, we are
    neither a full partner in the American nation, or an
    independent sovereign state. So, there is no doubt in my mind
    that Puerto Rico is a colony, even though some confusion
    exists, internationally and in Puerto Rico, about the official
    relationship of the United States with Puerto Rico.
        Since 1898 the Puerto Rican people have had three
    opportunities to express their opinion as to what sort of
    relationship should exist between Puerto Rico and the United
    States.
        In 1952 the people of Puerto Rico were invited either to
    enter into a Commonwealth relationship with the United States
    or to retain their then current status. In this instance, the
    Puerto Rican people ``chose'' what was offered to them.
    Independence and statehood were not options.
        In 1967 a plebiscite was held in Puerto Rico on three
    political status alternatives: independence, statehood and a
    continuation of commonwealth status. Unfortunately, the
    plebiscite legislation was considered unfair by a substantial
    percentage of the electorate. After a contentious plebiscite
    marred by a substantial boycott on the part of proponents of
    independence and statehood, the Commonwealth option prevailed.
        In 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico conducted a
    plebiscite initiated under local law on Puerto Rico's political
    status. In it, none of the three status propositions received a
    majority of the votes cast. However, results showed that almost
    everyone wanted to change the existing status.
        The final tally of the plebiscite results reveals that out
    of nearly two million registered voters, 1.7 million, (73.5%)
    of them participated. The results were 826,326 votes for a
    commonwealth (48.6%), 788,296 for statehood (46.3%), and 75,620
    for independence (4.4%).
        Unfortunately and shamefully, up to now we have not abided
    by the right to self determination for the People of Puerto
    Rico. Although we have deplored colonialism and paternalism by
    other nations, we continue to practice it ourselves in our
    treatment of Puerto Rico. I can only hope that with this
    legislation we will finally end colonialism in Puerto Rico.
        The Puerto Rican people are anxious for this opportunity to
    freely, fairly and collectively determine the political status
    of their island. And if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, there could
    not be a more appropriate time for this vital democratic
    exercise of self-determination than right now, going into the
    millennium.
        Section 4, paragraph (a) of this bill, the ``United States-
    Puerto Rico Political Status Act,'' provides, and I quote, ``A
    referendum on Puerto Rico's political status shall be held not
    later than December31, 1998.''
        This commitment is good not only for the people of Puerto
    Rico, but for the credibility of American democracy in this era
    of stunning changes. As we in the United States strive to
    encourage and foster these developments around the world, it is
    es-

    sential that we hold true to our principles at home and provide
    the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to exercise full self
    determination and decide, a final political status of our
    island.
        I would like to express my deep satisfaction with the fact
    that we are holding this hearing today. I believe that there
    is, in sum, one great Puerto Rican community. It encompasses
    those who reside on the island, and those who live in the
    United States. I also believe that there is no question about
    the effect our status has on those Puerto Ricans who reside on
    the fifty states, in terms of their own well being, as well as
    in terms of their future prospects for a return to the island.
    Moreover, the influence Puerto Ricans in the fifty states can
    wield, no doubt, will be an important factor in moving the
    plebiscite process forward in Congress.
        Therefore, in due time I will propose an amendment to H.R.
    856 that will make any person that was born in Puerto Rico and
    is not residing on the island of Puerto Rico, eligible to vote
    in the 1998 referendum.
        As you all know, since I was elected to Congress in March
    of 1990, I have been advocating for this nonresident vote
    because I am convinced that the right of a people to determine
    its political status is so fundamental that Congress needs to
    give all Puerto Ricans the opportunity to voice their opinions
    on the issue. Just because a Puerto Rican leaves his or her
    homeland to go to the U.S. mainland for economic or educational
    reasons should not disqualify them to vote in the referendum.
    While former Puerto Rican residents, in general, are not
    allowed to vote in local elections, the issue of self-
    determination is a unique and important franchise that warrants
    broader voter eligibility. Unlike general elections which are
    purely related to local issues, a plebiscite to determine the
    final political status of a country will undoubtedly affect
    both Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those living on
    the U.S. mainland.
        It is my hope that we can settle this issue as soon as
    possible because it would be a shame for this country to
    continue Puerto Rico's colonial status. This bill will afford
    all Puerto Ricans an effective, viable process of self
    determination. As a Puerto Rican, I say, ``Let us decide this
    issue once and for all,'' and as an American Congressman I can
    say, ``Shame on us that we still have a colony in 1997.'' And,
    so, let me say that it is in the interest of the United States
    to settle this issue, settle it clearly and leave no question
    unanswered as to the self-determination rights of Puerto Rico,
    with the participation of those of us that reside outside of
    the island.
        This issue is one that touches the heart as well as the
    mind of every Puerto Rican, whether they are on the island or
    somewhere in the 50 states. In Spain, Mexico, the Armed Forces,
    etc. they seek information and they are watching closely the
    decisions we make. It is clear to me that all of us, regardless
    of where we live and where we stand in terms of the final
    outcome, feel that the time has come for true self-
    determination. We are politically mature. Ninety-nine years as
    an American colony and 400 years as a Spanish colony are more
    than enough.
        My friends we have no credibility in the world if we fail
    to practice what we preach, if we continue to bear the shame of
    denying a people the basic human right of political self
    determination.
        I applaud you all here today because you are taking the
    issue of the status of Puerto Rico seriously, so the 3.8
    million American citizens in Puerto Rico and over 2.7 million
    Puerto Ricans on the mainland can fulfill their right to self-
    determination. I earnestly encourage you to forcefully seek
    passage of this bill so the colonial status of the United
    States citizens of Puerto Rico can end, and so we may honor
    their choice of a future, within this Nation or among the
    nations of the world.

        The Chairman. Thank you. I am in awe. We have had an
    excellent panel here.
        Peter, you are up next.

      STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                FLORIDA

        Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also join in
    praise of you and the ranking member for this legislation. It
    is, I think, brilliant legislation besides important
    legislation.
        What it does as its premise, I think, is important for
    everyone both in this country and in Puerto Rico to understand.
    And the premise is that the present status is not a permanent
    status. That is the working principle. And I think that is
    something worth repeating and worth stating, because without
    this legislation, the il-

    lusion of permanent status under commonwealth can continue. I
    think it is factually not a permanent status. And anyone who
    holds that position is just wrong. And this legislation by its
    introduction, hopefully by its passage, has the United States
    Congress make that statement. And it is no longer a debatable
    point.
        And I will join Congressman Burton's comment that I don't
    live in Puerto Rico. I wasn't born there. I obviously have a
    concern over its future for a variety of reasons, including
    being the Member of Congress on the mainland closest to Puerto
    Rico. But I think that the acknowledgement that permanent
    status is only in the options of statehood or independence is
    significant.
        And the way the bill is set up, if commonwealth is voted
    for, that there will be by definition another plebiscite and
    another plebiscite and another plebiscite by this legislation
    until a permanent status solution is determined by the people
    of Puerto Rico. And, you know, that is, number one, I think, a
    thing that is significant.
        The second thing I think which is significant is really the
    final--the challenge that you have as a Committee to work out
    the final language in terms of that plebiscite itself. I think
    that that issue is clearly a critical issue which I believe
    this Committee will be able to do. It is not going to be an
    easy task, but I think it is a task that reasonable people--at
    the end of the day you are not going to make everyone happy on
    every part of it.
        But I think that in watching the election and the
    plebiscite, the recent plebiscite, I think it is clear that not
    only was the election, as my colleague Mr. Serrano said, all
    sides were talking about change, but I think what is clear for
    someone 1000 miles away looking at commercials or reading some
    of the print ads is that there was misinformation. There were
    issues that were presented in terms of definition that just
    were not accurate. And there are factual premises that need to
    be stated. Whether people like them or not, they need to be
    stated.
        If Congress is not willing to define independence, for
    instance, the way Mr. Gutierrez suggested, then that ought to
    be stated. You know, it is an illusion to present it in a way
    that it is just not a reality. I mean, it is not--we don't want
    the debate to be a demagogue debate. We want it to be a factual
    debate. If Congress is willing to do that, then it ought to be
    presented as that as an option within the facts presented. But
    that--forcing ourselves in this process to come up with those
    languages, I think, is very, very significant as well.
        The last thing I would mention, because those of us who
    have been involved in this legislation know this is what
    stopped the legislation the last time, which is the issue of
    language. I think it is an issue that we need to speak about
    and confront and talk about. Again, for anyone who has followed
    these issues, it is just not appropriate for the Congress to be
    dictating to a State what it is--whether that is the capital of
    the State, whether that is another issue, which in the history
    of this country has been debated on and off. It is just not
    appropriate.
        And let me also make clear on the language issue, I think
    that English ought to be taught and in Puerto Rican schools
    whether or not Puerto Rico is a State, whether Puerto Rico is a
    State, a commonwealth or independent. I think that the people,
    the government of Puerto Rico is doing a disservice to the
    children of Puerto Rico in not making it bilingual. In many
    ways, the United States government in many parts of this
    country is doing a disservice to many citizens by not
    encouraging second languages.
        In 1997 to not acknowledge--and particularly if you have
    the vantage point of South Florida where South Florida truly is
    the capital of the Caribbean and South America. I mean, we
    truly are. It is not a cliche. It is a physical reality in
    terms of corporate headquarters, in terms of flight paths, in
    terms of a variety of issues. We see it on a daily basis in our
    community. And that issue, though, is something that, I think,
    needs to transcend--I was very happy to hear Mr. McCollum's
    comments this morning. And I hope that all of his Republican
    colleagues and all the Chairman's Republican colleagues join
    him in the efforts to take away that issue as a stumbling block
    to this legislation.
        [Statement of Hon. Peter Deutsch follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Peter Deutsch, a U.S. Representative from Florida

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Resources, I want
    to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
    856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As a
    representative from a state with a strong ties to Puerto Rico
    and a vibrant Puerto Rican community, I am encouraged by the
    progress you have made on this issue, both in drafting a fair
    and balanced bill and in educating Members of Congress on the
    importance of the future status of Puerto Rico.
        For too long, Congress has failed to appropriately and
    acceptably address the future political relationship between
    Puerto Rico and the United States. As a possession of the
    United States subject to the authority of Congress under the
    Territorial Clause, Puerto Rico and its future status is our
    responsibility and should be dealt with promptly. For this
    reason, it is not sufficient for us to abdicate our federal
    responsibilities with regards to Puerto Rico, rather we must
    work to define the options they may pursue.
        Many of those who are against H.R. 856 argue that the
    status issue was decided by the plebiscite in 1993. As this
    Committee is aware, however, the definition of commonwealth
    appearing on that ballot was both unworkable and
    unconstitutional. It promised unrealistic benefits for the
    people of Puerto Rico, nonetheless received just a slim
    plurality of the vote. Wisely, Congress rejected those results
    as inconclusive for the purpose of determining future status.
        Despite the failures and deficiencies of the 1993
    commonwealth definition, there are still individuals who insist
    that portions of that legislation should be incorporated into
    the current proposal, H.R. 856. For example, provisions such as
    the promise of full federal benefits without paying federal
    taxes and veto power over Congressional decisions would
    certainly appeal to many of my constituents in South Florida,
    but we all know that these wishes are impossible to grant. By
    concocting a ``have it both ways'' hybrid of statehood and
    separate sovereignty, the individuals opposed to the Young Bill
    are hoping to expand a status that was never intended to be
    permanent. Fortunately, the bill before us today distinguishes
    between the realistic and the unrealistic and provides a real
    vehicle for finally determining the political status of Puerto
    Rico.
        The appropriate way for the United States to respect the
    right of self-determination in Puerto Rico is for Congress to
    clearly and unequivocally define the options for change. To
    avoid the confusion of 1993, Congress must also confirm the
    nature of the status quo. The definitions should not include
    proposals for special benefits or possible agreements which
    could be reached to enhance any of the basic status options,
    but rather should prescribe the fundamental legal rights and
    political elements of each status option. On that basis, the
    voters will be able to make an informed choice that will be in
    a format respected on the mainland. I believe H.R. 856 meets
    these criteria and offers three distinct, realistic paths.
        Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that there is propaganda
    being circulated claiming that Congress is legally constrained
    from defining the current status in a way that is different
    from the 1993 ballot definition of commonwealth. The people
    putting forth these arguments are citing a Federal lower court
    case they perceive contains some dictum supporting their
    position. I would refer my colleagues with the opposing
    viewpoint to page 67 of House Report 104-713, July 26, 1996,
    which contains commentary from the U.S. Department of Justice
    repudiating the interpretation of the case being cited by
    opponents of H.R. 856. As the members here today are aware, the
    House Report I am referring to was the result of this
    Committee's exhaustive work on the self-determination issue
    last year and are positions that hold true today.
        Quotations from statements made by U.S. diplomats in the
    United Nations back in 1953 are being used to support the
    theory that, as a result of approving the local constitution in
    1952, Congress is bound forever by a ``bilateral compact'' that
    is unalterable without the consent of Puerto Rico. Again, I
    would refer them to the analysis of U.N. process in 1953 set
    forth on pages 11 through 23 of House Report 104-713.
        The notion that Puerto Rico has somehow been converted from
    an unincorporated territory to a permanent commonwealth status
    is erroneous and unconstitutional. In 1953, the U.S. informed
    the U.N. that the precise nature of the relationship would be
    subject to ``judicial interpretation'' and that local self-
    government was limited to ``internal affairs and
    administration.'' Furthermore, in the case of Harris v.
    Rosario, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico remains
    an unincorporated territory subject to the plenary authority of
    Congress under the territorial clause of the Constitution.
        Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the comprehensive schedule
    of hearings on this bill both in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto
    Rico. The importance of listening to all sides in this debate
    cannot be stressed enough and will serve to produce a far
    stronger bill in the process.
        After nearly 100 years as our colonial possession, it is
    clear that Puerto Rico must either become a full, responsible
    and co-equal participant in our Union or become a separate
    nation. H.R. 856 is the first step in this long process. I urge
    my colleagues to take the time to consider the impact their
    attention to this legislation will have on the future of Puerto
    Rico and to understand their responsibility to resolve this
    issue now.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of
    the Resources Committee for this opportunity to testify.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Peter. And I can assure that block
    will be removed. We have our last Member. Nydia, you are up
    next. Best for last.

     STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                NEW YORK

        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young, Mr.
    Miller, distinguished colleagues and distinguished witnesses,
    thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before this
    Committee. It is my hope that we will work together in a
    constructive fashion to finally reach a resolution to Puerto
    Rico's status question. We should strive to respect the wishes
    of Puerto Ricans throughout this process. Anything less and we
    would be dishonoring the memories of so many Puerto Ricans who
    gave their lives for this country.
        Puerto Ricans have put their faith in this government that
    true self-determination would one day be achieved in a fair and
    democratic manner. Indeed, my colleagues, almost 100 years
    after Puerto Rico became part of the United States it is tragic
    to see the divisiveness this debate has caused. Instead, we
    should work together to settle our differences and respect the
    wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 856 was written without fully consulting the Puerto
    Rican people. Yet, status definitions have historically been
    written with such participation. The definitions in this
    legislation were not written in such manner. They are just a
    few of the many other shortcomings and unanswered questions.
        This government has told the people of Puerto Rico and the
    world that the island enjoys full self-government under the
    commonwealth. This bill simply does not treat commonwealth
    status with inherent dignity it deserves and that was duly
    enacted in 1952. We went to the United Nations and we told the
    world in 1953 that it was a form of self-government.
        One matter that is of utmost concern to all Puerto Ricans
    is the right, their right, to maintain their language, their
    language rights. And, yes, I do support the fact that the
    government of Puerto Rico should have the responsibility of
    teaching English in the schools and the Federal Government has
    a responsibility to provide the funding that they need to
    achieve such a goal. And in light of the deficits that we are
    facing in this country, I would like to see that there is a
    commitment from this Congress to provide such funding.
    Otherwise we are going to say to the people of Puerto Rico,
    yes, you should learn English, you are part of the United
    States, and yet we cannot provide the funding you need because
    we are doing programs that are so vital not only for Puerto
    Rico but also for the many citizens of this country.
        The bill mandates a long 10-year process for the people of
    Puerto Rico to choose their status. Adding to this uncertainty
    is the fact that there is nothing in this legislation that will
    actually guarantee statehood if that option prevails. Consider
    that it took Alaska decades after it voted to become a State to
    finally be incorporated. The 105th Congress must have a clear
    proposal on any commitment to resolve Puerto Rico's status
    issue.
        Instead of ensuring that the voices of all Puerto Ricans
    are heard, this bill is silent on whether stateside Puerto
    Ricans will participate in any future plebiscite. We must
    ensure that all those who were born in Puerto Rico and care
    about the future of their birthplace have the right to vote on
    such a monumental issue. Anything less would be unfair.
        Furthermore, the legislation does not even address the
    question of the full cost to the United States of Puerto Rico
    statehood. Nor have we heard an official Administration
    position on this bill. These fundamental, but essential, issues
    must be resolved or Congress will be forced to revisit this
    process again and again.
        Not only does this bill lack full consultation, it is also
    not inclusive. This bill is especially troubling to me because
    the future of the Puerto Rican people is what is at stake here.
    Think of the disturbing message we are sending to the world,
    who look to our country as a bastion of liberty and democracy.
        My colleagues, let us make a commitment to provide a dialog
    that will allow the Puerto Rican people to express themselves.
    I strongly urge this Committee and the Congress to find
    solutions that will help resolve the political status issue,
    but only with the participation of all Puerto Ricans and all
    political parties from Puerto Rico.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [Statement of Nydia Velazquez may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Nydia. I will open it up for
    questions at this time. Anybody? Yes, Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Thank you. And I want
    to thank the panel. I think it was an incredible presentation.
    I would like--if I might ask you to expand on two points. Jose,
    if you would expand on the issue about participation by people
    residing in the United States in the election. And, Nydia and
    Luis, you both raised the issue of--actually, Luis, I think,
    raised it more. Nydia was also on the voting, but on the issue
    of if independence is chosen, the issue of access, where that
    would be, how that plays out in the consideration of this
    legislation. If you might briefly expand on that.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Miller. First of all, as I said
    before, I believe that the bulk of the migration from Puerto
    Rico, certainly in the '20's, '30's, '40's, '50's and '60's and
    '70's, was a direct result of the relationship between the
    United States and Puerto Rico. For a long time the United
    States Government and Congress paid very little attention to
    Puerto Rico's economic problems.
        I don't recall my parents coming to New York in the late
    '40's and denouncing Puerto Rico or its politicians. On the
    contrary, the first thing all Puerto Ricans did was to set up a
    hometown organization to start a parade, to start a festival,
    to keep those links and those ties going.
        Since I believe that our migration was a direct result of
    that relationship, then when that relationship is resolved
    forever--and I believe that eventually it will be resolved
    forever--it will be either independence or statehood. That is
    what I believe, it should either be independence or statehood.
    But then all the children of the colony, if you will, should be
    allowed to participate. And to me all the children are those
    who were born there or those who were born of parents born
    there.
        Let me just say this very quickly. Look at the situation
    you have. You have people who came to Puerto Rico from other
    countries and established a relationship with the U.S.
    Government called citizenship through application for
    citizenship, not citizenship from the island of Puerto Rico,
    not an agreement with the people of Puerto Rico but with the
    United States. Yet under our legislation, because of our
    election laws, they will be allowed to vote on the future of
    Puerto Rico while people who were born there and their children
    would not be allowed to vote.
        I repeat, I will never ask to vote for governor of Puerto
    Rico while I reside in New York. That is improper. I will never
    ask for any other kind of vote. But this vote is different.
    This vote belongs to a people and this vote may finally come
    about after imposition by the United States of a colonial
    status for a long time.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you. Luis.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Well, let me just first say that in 1917 we
    passed the Jones Act, which conferred upon the people of Puerto
    Rico, to put it in those terms, American citizenship without
    their consultation. Indeed, Jose de Diego responded to the
    Congress of the United States through the only elected
    mechanism that was on the island by saying thank you. But no
    thank you, the only other citizenship that I want other than
    Puerto Rican citizenship is the one I get after I have lived,
    which is the entrance into heaven, so that is the only other
    citizenship I ever want. So I think that we need to understand
    that in terms of how it is we participate in this process.
        So I would like to echo the sentiments of my friend Jose
    from New York to allow a greater expansion of this franchise,
    to allow those Puerto Ricans in the United States to
    participate, because, Mr. Miller, I read and I believe that Mr.
    Young believes that he sais so in his opening statement--that
    in 1898 when the United States invaded Puerto Rico as part of
    the Spanish-American War, that somehow Puerto Rico lost its
    nationality, that somehow Puerto Rico lost its sense of nation
    because we were adopted by the United States of America.
        I would suggest that Puerto Rico is a Latin American
    country, has continued to be a Spanish-speaking, Latin American
    country that happens to have American citizenship. So the
    nationality is Puerto Rican. The citizenship is of the United
    States, which we all share, so therefore all Puerto Ricans
    should all be able to participate.
        Let me quickly answer your second question. I think, Mr.
    Miller, that knowing the way this works obviously if you are a
    statehooder in Puerto Rico, you can say that your status or
    your position guarantees Social Security and medicare and
    expansion of the franchises, lots of goodies and lots of good
    things and a lot of the things that the Puerto Rican people
    have fought for and worked and sacrificed for.
        Can't we just be a little fair in terms of our relationship
    with Puerto Rico by saying under independence those American
    citizens that are part of the Nation of Puerto Rico will
    continue to receive those benefits they have earned? We have to
    say that clearly and unequivocally so that if an argument is
    raised in Congress that to continue granting these benefits to
    Puerto Ricans is too expensive, that we say, look, you know,
    there's been American bases in Puerto Rico for which we paid
    nothing for all these years.
        Puerto Rico's economy, as Jose stated earlier, has suffered
    because we haven't been able to enter into international trade
    with other countries because our economy is somehow false and
    fictitious because it is a colonial situation. Here is what we
    are going to do, but we want to enter into a new partnership so
    that we can structure it in such a way that it is real, Mr.
    Miller, not false, that it is real and a partnership so that we
    can say to the rest of Latin America when Puerto Rico, which I
    am sure it will, achieves its full independence one day; ``look
    at the jewel of the democracy and the relationship we have
    crafted with Puerto Rico after 100 or so years of a colonial
    situation.'' That would be our jewel and our way of presenting
    to Latin America our new relationship with Puerto Rico.
        The Chairman. Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A witness who will
    speak shortly says that one crucial question regarding
    statehood for Puerto Rico is--comes about--the way he puts it,
    he says would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto
    Rico's per capita income remains as it has for the past 50
    years, one-third of the United States and one-half of that of
    your poorest State, considering the repercussions of that
    reality on the Federal treasury. That is a statement from
    Senator Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican
    Independence Party.
        What--that does raise a question, I think, we should look
    at that at some point. What would be the impact on the Federal
    treasury? Can any of you help me in that regard?
        Mr. Gutierrez. Let me just--quickly, the GAO released a
    study, and I am sure we are going to debate it and discuss it
    quite a bit. It said statehood would cost the Federal treasury
    $3 billion, but let me just quickly add----
        Mr. Duncan. $3 billion?
        Mr. Serrano. $3 billion a year.
        Mr. Duncan. Over?
        Mr. Serrano. A year. Because of increased Medicaid and
    Medicare. But let me make two quick points. I think that
    Congress is going to have to consider this as it balances the
    budget at the same time. It is looking at a new entry, a full
    participant in the Nation. So we are definitely going to have
    to do that. That is the situation that we are going to have to
    fall on statehood, but we should tell the people of Puerto
    Rico.
        Mr. Gutierrez. But let me just quickly add that,
    Congressman, if the Congress of the United States enacts the
    bill and our plebiscite occurs thereafter and statehood would
    win that plebiscite under the rules, as a Member of Congress
    from a Congressional district which is the poorest in the State
    of Illinois and one of the poorest in the nation, if you are
    willing to go back to your district and tell the people of your
    district that we need self-determination, we need to respect
    that position, I will tell you one thing. I will go back to the
    poorest people in my district and say the $3 billion is just
    something that we are going to have to pay as a Nation.
        Mr. Duncan. Nydia.
        Ms. Velazquez. I would like to also react to that, because
    I think it is important when I mention that the cost of
    statehood has not been clearly stated throughout this
    legislation because once we are committed as the United States
    Congress to recognize the rights of the people of Puerto Rico
    to self-determination, and if in fact the people of Puerto Rico
    vote for statehood, I want to see a commitment from this
    institution that we will respect that will expressed freely by
    the people of Puerto Rico, so that we don't come back here and
    then in the debate, during the debate process we are discussing
    here how much it is going to cost, statehood is going to cost
    to the United States treasury. And then there might be some of
    us who supported the process of self-determination for the
    Puerto Rican people, but when we find out how much it is going
    to cost and when we have to determine whether or not we will
    support it--because here we are balancing the budget and
    dealing with the deficit of this Nation and then you have to
    say well, in order to achieve this we might have to cut certain
    vital programs in our own districts.
        The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. McCollum. If I could respond just very quickly that I
    think that there are two issues. One is I assume you are going
    to have economists who are going to say the exact opposite,
    that the economy of Puerto Rico is really--that there is a
    weight on it right now in commonwealth status. The uncertainty
    of commonwealth status is really a hindrance to capital
    formation. I mean, if you have been to Puerto Rico, you can
    just literally see with your eyes the economic potential that
    exists in that country, in that island at this point at time,
    incredible.
        And I would also point that you can find economists who are
    going to disagree on the economic impact to the Federal budget,
    but I think history tells its lessons well. Florida's income
    was far less, the percentage points, than Puerto Rico when
    Florida became a State. And there are examples and examples and
    examples of ter-

    ritories becoming States where what has happened on a
    historical basis and that those economies have grown and have
    ultimately become incredible positive impacts to the treasury.
        The Chairman. I would like to make one comment. Be very
    careful about reporting GAO reports. I have one in my
    possession, in fact, that shows that we--the treasury gains $50
    million a year, because there is a lot of money going down
    there. Regardless of the cost, there is a justice question
    here, I think, that has to be addressed. I want to suggest one
    other thing. I am the last person other than my good friend
    Neil from Hawaii that went through this process. And if you had
    looked at the income of Alaska and the people that were
    employed in Alaska at the time of statehood, we were in dire
    straits. Now I want to suggest we are in much better shape now
    than most any other State in the union. We could not have been
    that unless we were an independent nation. I will tell that.
    And I could be king instead of Chairman.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Will the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman. I am going to yield to----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Duncan, will you yield, sir? Mr.
    Duncan, can you state what your--just for your information,
    because of the hearing. When you asked what would be the cost
    to the Federal Government for Puerto Rico to become a State,
    the comment that Mr. McCollum made is partly true. It is true
    that when we become a State the additional programs that will
    go to Puerto Rico that are not being paid over now would
    represent, I think, a little bit more than 3 billion, would
    represent 3-1/2 billion additional funding, but at the same
    time we are not paying any Federal income tax. If we pay
    Federal income taxes fully, we would pay about 4 billion to 4-
    1/2 billion. So they--it would be a--and that is for
    everything, for the Federal Government, Puerto Rico becoming a
    State; so we will be paying in taxes and the corporations will
    be paying in taxes and what Puerto Rico will be receiving.
        The Chairman. Gentlemen, let us see, who is next? I would
    say the gentleman from Guam because he was here early.
        Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Just a quick clarification. I was
    very interested in the determination of the franchise for
    participation in these plebiscites. And, Jose, you mentioned
    that you thought that the franchise--you alluded to it, but it
    wasn't in your written testimony. What are your sentiments
    about the franchise in Puerto Rico itself? Who should
    participate in Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Serrano. Well, obviously in all of my comments I have
    always said that we should--. Let me back up and say a lot of
    people have said the reason you can't have a vote outside is
    because you can't carry out that vote. It is hard to carry it
    out. But it is hard for me to believe that the most democratic
    nation on earth cannot conduct an election outside Puerto Rico
    for people who would be eligible to vote. But those people who
    live in Puerto Rico now who were born in Puerto Rico would be
    allowed to vote. There are laws that cover that currently. What
    I want is, this one time, to have Congress state that we would
    add something to this bill which would allow people over here
    to vote.
        Mr. Underwood. So if I moved to Puerto Rico before this,
    you wouldn't anticipate that I should be part of the franchise?
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I am very honest about this. My
    statement is very simple, and if it contradicts law, so be it.
    I don't have a problem with it.
        Mr. Underwood. No, actually I like the idea. I am just
    trying to get you to say yes.
        Mr. Serrano. No, I don't have a problem with you voting if
    I am allowed to vote, but I have a serious problem with you
    voting when you weren't born there if I am not allowed to vote.
        Mr. Underwood. But you are a very special person, so of
    course we would make special considerations----
        The Chairman. All right, I believe, Patrick, you are next
    if you have any questions.
        Mr. Kennedy. No.
        The Chairman. No questions. Donna, you are up.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would
    like to add my commendation to the Chairman and the ranking
    member for bringing this bill forward and thank my colleagues
    for coming today and giving that important testimony. I want to
    say that I support this process. And my concern here is that
    the people of Puerto Rico be given a process in which they can
    freely and fairly vote and realize their hopes and aspirations
    through this process.
        [Statement of Hon. Donna Christian-Green follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Donna Christian-Green, a U.S. Delegate in Congress
                            from the Virgin Islands

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking member, thank you for this
    opportunity to give brief opening remarks on H.R. 856, a bill
    to provide a process leading to full self government for Puerto
    Rico.
        This process is an important one, and one which I am
    committed to see go forward.
        My only concern, and what I see as my duty, as we move
    forward, is to insure that the people of Puerto Rico have a
    process in which they will be able to choose freely and fairly
    the status which most realizes their hopes and aspirations.
        In order to have this happen, it is important that each
    option be presented objectively and be given equal treatment in
    the bill.
        It would be a travesty for the people of Puerto Rico to
    choose an option based on misunderstanding the issues involved,
    or on limited or lack of knowledge of how the proposed change
    would impact their lives.
        I take special interest in this process, not only on behalf
    of the People of Puerto Rico, our neighbors and our friends,
    but because of the importance of this process to all of the
    off-shore possessions. Each one of us is or will be traveling
    the path of redefinition of our relationship to the U.S.
        What happens here will set the precedent and the tone for
    us.
        I want to take this opportunity to welcome the witnesses,
    and to express my confidence that we can work together to make
    this vehicle of Puerto Rican self-expression one that will
    truly result in the future that its citizens desire.

        Ms. Christian-Green. I am not sure if the question was
    that--my questions was along the lines of Guam. I would like to
    address it to Congressman Gutierrez. You said that people who
    had resided in Puerto Rico for 70 days should not really be
    allowed to participate in this process. Do you have----
        Mr. Gutierrez. Let me--thank you, Congresswoman, for the
    question. The way I read the bill, and Congressman Young is
    here and I am sure he will correct me quickly.
        The Chairman. Especially when I have got the gavel.
        Mr. Gutierrez. The way I read the bill is that those who
    would be allowed to participate in the electoral process, that
    we would use provisions of the local laws of Puerto Rico. We
    would not establish our own electoral law in this decolonizing
    process, that we would just adopt the laws of--the local law in
    Puerto Rico. And I understand, and I could be mistaken, that if
    70 days prior to an election I would--thank you.
        The Governor has just--OK, you have to establish residency.
    The point is that this is a very short period of time that I
    can arrive on the island of Puerto Rico and I can participate.
    My point is my mom and dad may be in Chicago. Nydia's mom and
    dad may be in New York. We don't know--I mean, the franchise of
    the Puerto Rican people. And my point is this, and I think it
    is a very important point. As you go through a process, you
    have to figure out who the nationals are of the Nation that are
    going through the process of decolonization as it is adopting
    self-government and self-rule.
        So let us just figure out what that definition--for
    example, Mexico has adopted dual nationality. The government of
    Mexico has stated that if you were born in Mexico or you are
    the child, first-generation child, of a person born in Mexico,
    you are a national. Now you can become and adopt American
    citizenship, as many Mexican nationals have done, and become
    citizens of this country, yet Mexico still regards you a
    Mexican who has been naturalized as an American citizen as
    their national. So I think we can figure out a way of doing
    this, and I think that it is very, very important.
        I met a young man from Eritrea, and he got to vote, even
    though he was in Washington, D.C., on the ultimate status
    resolution of Eritrea, because he was a national of Eritrea.
    Although he had become a citizen of the United States of
    America, he was still a national of that country. So that is
    all I want to determine, who the nationals of Puerto Rico are.
        We may expand the franchise. I was fortunate enough to read
    the comments of the senator from Puerto Rico, Ruben Berrios,
    where he suggests, you know, maybe some people who have lived
    there for a while--let us just figure out what the rule is so
    that we can make it more inclusive.
        Ms. Christian-Green. And one other question. There are
    several of us territories that also feel that the history as it
    is written and studies in schools--I believe that was
    Congressman McCollum's statement, that the history of all of
    the territories should be included. Some of us are not yet
    going through this process. Do you believe that the process in
    this bill is one that can set a precedent for the rest of us
    such as the Virgin Islands, American Samoa?
        Mr. Gutierrez. I think if we adopt this bill, regardless of
    how I believe, it will set the precedent. And let me just
    quickly add, because you bring up the question of territory, I
    think one of the greatest points of consternation, especially
    for me, is this debate and the struggle that I have of being an
    independentista on one hand and struggling for independence and
    knowing that that is the rightful place of the people of Puerto
    Rico to enter into, and then the issue of self-determination
    and consultation with the people of Puerto Rico. And the
    problem that I have there is that it seems to me--and there is
    a big debate.
        If indeed in 1952 we enacted legislation and we went to the
    Unit-

    ed Nations and we said to the United Nations and to their
    Committee on Decolonization, excuse me, the government of the
    United States of America has entered into an agreement with the
    people of Puerto Rico for self-rule, please remove us from
    having to report before the Committee on Decolonization. And
    that was a process that was adopted by the Congress of the
    United States and accepted by the people of Puerto Rico. It
    seems to me that in the early 1950's the people in Puerto Rico
    made a decision, and it may be a decision that clearly stated
    we are a separate, distinct people who want a relationship, an
    autonomous relationship with the United States.
        But the other thing that the United Nations--and sometimes
    we forget, the United Nations said, you know something, that is
    really not enough, because we don't really think this whole
    process has been completely decolonized, so we want you to
    continue to perfect it. The problem has been that the Congress
    of the United States has rejected many of the perfections
    proposed for the autonomy status of Puerto Rico. So I think we
    should consider that as we evaluate the current situation.
        Mr. Serrano. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Just--she is about out of time, and I am
    going to suggest one thing.
        Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Kennedy. I would like to hear Congressman Serrano's
    response to that, because this is----
        The Chairman. I was going to do that, but if you would like
    to be recognized for that purpose, go ahead, because you said
    you didn't want to be recognized. Go ahead.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think this is
    the point that I want to hear, sort of, resolved through
    talking it out, because it is hanging over us with Nydia's
    comment that we haven't recognized fully the commonwealth
    portion of this debate. And what it means to the people of
    Puerto Rico to have independence, do they maintain their
    citizenship, as I believe they should if they were--they are
    citizens of this country. They will remain citizens. And their
    rights with respect to their benefits that they have earned and
    the like. I want to understand that within the context of
    independence as opposed to maintaining commonwealth status
    where it seems, according to you, Jose, that you are still in a
    period of limbo because this Committee and this Congress is
    still deciding a lot of the issues with respect to Puerto Rico.
    So, Jose----
        Mr. Serrano. Sure, and it ties into the answer to your
    question in that what this bill does is--and the reason I
    applaud this bill is--by the time this bill passes Congress and
    the vote is taken in Puerto Rico, every American who pays
    attention to these issues will know there is a Puerto Rico,
    there is a territorial situation, there is an issue to be dealt
    with. The world will be commenting on it. Some pressure will be
    coming on us. We will have to work on it. Right now that
    doesn't exist.
        Secondly, I believe that after 100 years of a relationship,
    if Puerto Rico determines that it wants to be an independent
    nation, it would not be improper. But it would also be fair,
    out of this relationship, to say, that everyone who was born up
    till 12:00 noon on the day of independence is an American
    citizen forever, till death. That at minimum as a payment for
    what they did in wartime and in other times throughout the
    history of----
        Mr. Kennedy. I agree with you. Now how would that be
    reconciled with Nydia's concern about commonwealth, some
    aspect? Because I have the feeling that independence while
    maintaining the rights and benefits earned by citizens of this
    country during this limbo period is what is also being confused
    with commonwealth. So what I am trying to understand is we
    probably have a question instead of sort of splitting the hairs
    between independence and maintaining rights and commonwealth--
    --
        Mr. Serrano. To me, Mr. Kennedy, it is totally different.
        Mr. Kennedy. OK.
        Mr. Serrano. And the way I break it down is the way nobody
    wants to hear it. If they were independent, they could
    establish relationships with Cuba tomorrow. They can't right
    now.
        Mr. Kennedy. OK.
        Mr. Serrano. As a commonwealth, they can't do that. Now
    citizenship if you expand commonwealth as some people would
    like, you really create an associated republic. Independence is
    clear. All I am saying is if independence comes out of the
    process--I hate to use this paternalistic approach, but when my
    children leave the house after they get married, they never
    stop being part of the family. There is always room for them. I
    always look out for them. If they need some cash, I try to help
    with that too. So after 100 years being used as a colony, the
    least you should do is keep your citizenship. You paid for it
    in Korea, Vietnam and everywhere else.
        Mr. Kennedy. Is this--I am interested--Nydia, would you say
    that what Jose is talking about would satisfy your concerns----
        Ms. Velazquez. No.
        Mr. Kennedy.--about whether commonwealth is properly
    recognized in this----
        Ms. Velazquez. I would say that in 1952 and in 1950 and '52
    and '53 when we went to the United Nations, this government,
    the United States government, went to the United Nations and
    stated very clearly that the people of Puerto Rico achieved
    self-government through a bilateral compact. And all of a
    sudden we come here and we delete history after we went there.
    We told the people that government was there, and it has been
    unfair, the fact that people--44 percent of the people of
    Puerto Rico in 1993 voted in a plebiscite that wasn't polled by
    the Popular Democratic Party because they didn't--they weren't
    in power. They didn't control both houses like the NPP, and
    this is what happened. They went and they said those 44 percent
    of the population of the voters, they voted for the
    commonwealth. Are you going to go and tell them that you don't
    have any say in the definition of the commonwealth? And this is
    the way that we comply with the aspirations of 44 percent of
    the people of Puerto Rico, and this is the way that we will
    achieve decolonization and full self-government? I don't
    believe so.
        Mr. Kennedy. As to----
        The Chairman. We are going to have a vote in ten minutes,
    and I have got some Members who would like to ask questions.
    Governor.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all I
    would like to--for the matter of the record, I would like to
    mention a couple of things. There is a discrepancy in Puerto
    Rico as to what happened in 1898, whether we were invaded or
    troops were asked to come in. And the vast majority of
    historians seeem to think, and the people who remember seem to
    think that the troops were actually--the United States was
    actually asked to come in, because the people of Puerto Rico,
    the vast majority, were not happy with their relationship with
    Spain at that time. So that is a matter of history and the
    record should be put straight, set straight on these issues.
        Then regarding who should vote, you have already seen a
    little bit of discrepancy between what the panel--Congressman
    Serrano says and what Congressman Gutierrez says and what
    Congressman Velazquez says. Congressman Gutierrez will extend
    to the children of those who were born in Puerto Rico, whereas
    Congressman Serrano says only those who were born in Puerto
    Rico. I have to----
        Mr. Serrano. No, that----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You assent to the children of those who
    were born?
        Mr. Serrano. Absolutely.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And would deny people who were not born
    in Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Serrano. Not if I would get it. They should get it.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. OK, that means virtually that my wife
    could not vote. My wife has been in Puerto Rico now for 30-some
    years, has children in Puerto Rico and grandchildren.
        Mr. Serrano. And neither should my wife.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, your wife doesn't live in Puerto
    Rico.
        Mr. Serrano. I am saying, Congressman, that, if we come to
    the conclusion to include us, we will work it out.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, let me--what right does somebody
    that is not going to live the benefits of dire consequences of
    the decision, because he is going to live up here in the
    mainland, have to tell--influence the decision of the people of
    Puerto Rico who are the ones that are going to be affected by
    that decision? What right do you have to tell me and others in
    Puerto Rico that you should do this and you actually
    participate in the decision when you are going to be outside
    Puerto Rico and you are not going to be living in Puerto Rico?
    I think--isn't that the position? Isn't that treating us also
    like a colony? The Puerto Ricans here now are going to treat us
    as a colony?
        Mr. Serrano. You want an answer to that, Carlos?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. This whole process is an imposition. Luis was
    correct. If this was about fairness and justice, the United
    States should get out now, tomorrow morning. But that is not
    going to happen. The whole process is an imposition. But it is
    a little imposition in a big imposition to include all of us.
    It is not a problem, really. It is really not a problem. I
    think we could work it out.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Let me ask another question. You say
    that the children can go and those that were born. Those who
    were born in Puerto Rico should vote even though they are
    living here. Now supposing somebody was in Puerto Rico visiting
    from the States and they had a child and they were there for a
    few weeks and then they left and the child left and they came
    over now and they have been living in Wisconsin. Now that child
    grew up in Wisconsin. He is not going back to Puerto Rico. He
    has children here. Then he and his children should be able to
    vote in Puerto Rico on that decision.
        Mr. Serrano. If I could answer----
        The Chairman. If I can, we are in a voting process. And
    this is a very interesting discussion and debate. It is not
    going to be solved right now at this time. I am going to
    suggest that--I am going to thank the panel, number one. I
    think it was a very excellent presentation. I am proud of this
    legislation. I think everybody knows that I want the change,
    because I will agree with the Governor and Congressman Serrano
    about the status quo is no longer acceptable. So we are going
    to go forth in this legislative process. And I am hoping
    everybody will take the opportunity--I am sure the people of
    Puerto Rico will participate in this discussion, and so will
    the members of this Committee. But in due respect to the next
    panel, I would suggest at this time that this panel be excused
    and we will go vote and then the next panel will be on when we
    get back so we can expedite this process. This hearing is
    recessing till 20 minutes to one o'clock. Thank you.
        [Recess]
        The Chairman. It gives me a great honor at this time to
    introduce the Honorable Governor, Governor Pedro Rossello of
    Puerto Rico. He will be on the witness stand. And I just want
    to welcome you, Governor, as one that has dealt with many other
    governors over a period of time. And being in your great
    territory, I certainly have enjoyed your hospitality and your
    willingness to share your views as well as those of the people
    in Puerto Rico. So welcome, Governor, at this time.

    STATEMENT OF PEDRO ROSSELLO, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN,
                              PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Rossello. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and
    members of the Committee on Resources. For the record, my name
    is Pedro Rossello. Since 1993 I have been Governor of Puerto
    Rico. And in that capacity on two occasions I presented
    statements to the 104th Congress that may be of interest to
    each one of you.
        On October 17, 1995, here in Washington I addressed a
    hearing conducted jointly by this Committee, the Committee's
    Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, and by the
    Subcommittee of the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee
    on International Relations. Then on March 23, 1996, I appeared
    before the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee at
    a hearing conducted in San Juan. My October 1995 statement
    pertained to a November 1993 political status consultation
    organized by the government of Puerto Rico with the full
    support of all three Puerto Rican political parties. My March
    1996 statement pertained to H.R. 3024, a bill filed by Chairman
    Young which bore the same title as the measure before us today.
        Because of their relevance and because they may be
    particularly useful to members of this Committee that did not
    serve on the aforementioned Subcommittees of the last Congress,
    I shall be grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those
    statements available to every member of the Committee on
    Resources of this 105th Congress.
        Although I am the president of a political party, and
    although I do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto
    Rico's status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at the outset that
    my declarations at this hearing shall be solely in my role as
    chief executive of the government of Puerto Rico and on behalf
    of the people of Puerto Rico as a recipient this past November
    of the largest electorate mandate granted to any gubernatorial
    candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.
        In addressing you as Governor and as a spokesperson for a
    strong mandate from the people of Puerto Rico to move toward
    the final definition and decision on our political status, I
    see it as my duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my
    assistance as you commence to the profoundly important process
    of evaluating H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political
    Status Act.
        For the past eight years all the people of Puerto Rico and
    the United States Government have manifested a commendable
    commitment to addressing this issue seriously, responsibly and
    in an impressively nonpartisan manner. In 1989 a pro-
    commonwealth governor enlisted the backing of all three Puerto
    Rico political parties in soliciting action from the Federal
    Government. That petition produced an earnest and positive
    response from a Republican President and a Congress that was
    controlled by Democrats. More than two years of dedicated
    effort resulted from that initiative.
        The effort fell short, but we must say it did not fail.
    Rather it left behind a valuable foundation upon which we have
    been building ever since. And so it was that my administration,
    led by a pro-statehood governor, succeeded four years ago and
    maintained a united front of Puerto Rico political parties in
    resuming the quest for a solution to the status dilemma. And so
    it was, too, that with a Democrat in the White House and
    Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, Washington has remained
    equally united since 1995 in pursuit of a mutually satisfactory
    remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto
    Rico's current relationship with the rest of our fellow
    citizens of the United States of America.
        President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the
    beginning of this year in a letter that was read aloud by his
    personal representative during my second term inauguration
    ceremony in January. The President wrote, and I quote, ``I will
    work with you, the island's other elected leaders, the Congress
    and all concerned to establish a process that would enable the
    fundamental issue of Puerto Rico's political status to finally
    be resolved.''
        Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and
    Ranking Member Miller have localized a broad bipartisan
    coalition with the solid backing of Speaker Newt Gingrich and
    the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-
    Barcelo. On the Senate side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited
    Puerto Rico this past weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation
    from his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The senators
    held lengthy meetings with senior officials from the political
    parties representing Puerto Rico status options.
        In light of these developments, I can state for the record
    that the people of Puerto Rico are looking forward with
    enthusiasm to the imminent exercise by Congress of its
    constitutional responsibility to collaborate with us on
    converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto Rico's status into a
    shining star of statesmanship. I am convinced that together we
    can do it, Mr. Chairman. Through a determined, persistent,
    unflagging effort and an unshakable allegiance to patriotic
    civility, we can indeed do it. Moreover, I suggest we can do it
    expeditiously.
        I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having requested of each
    Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a
    proposed definition which it believe will be most appropriate
    for the status option it supports. It is my understanding that
    each of the parties intends to comply with that request. You
    acted expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, in filing H.R. 856. You
    acted expeditiously in scheduling this hearing. You acted
    expeditiously in requesting status definitions. And I urge you
    that we likewise expedite the entire process contemplated by
    this bill.
        A year ago this week in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024 I
    proposed that the process be streamlined. Like that earlier
    bill, H.R. 856 envisions, and I quote, ``a transition plan of
    ten years mini-

    mum, which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico
    consistent with the terms of this act.'' Nothing has transpired
    during the past 12 months to alter my outlook on this aspect of
    that legislation.
        Accordingly, I take this opportunity to urge once again
    that this bill's three stages, initial decision, transition,
    and implementation, be consolidated into two stages. I feel
    certain that the transition and implementation stages can be
    combined in such a way as to eliminate any need for conducting
    the interim referendum that is stipulated by the bill under the
    provisions set forth in its transition stage.
        If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-
    government during the initial decision stage, I see no reason
    why ten or more additional years must elapse before we are able
    to cast a definite yes or no vote on a presidentially submitted
    and a Congressionally approved implementation formula.
        A streamlining of this nature would save time, energy and
    money. It would facilitate the completion of the entire process
    with the utmost, focused attention to detail during that period
    that could easily be reduced to a maximum of four to five
    years. But more than that, by expediting matters, we can help
    to ensure that the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
    Act achieves its purpose, because by expediting matters we can
    greatly enhance the likelihood that the momentum of this
    historic undertaking will not be weakened by unforeseen events
    that could occur as we go forward. And furthermore, it would
    send a strong message to all that Congress is ready and
    committed to act.
        When I first offered the suggestion at the San Juan hearing
    of March 1996, my exact words were these. ``Ten years, I
    respectfully submit, is an inordinately long time. Ten years
    ago there were two Germanies and a Berlin wall. South Africa
    was still under Apartheid. The North American Free Trade
    Agreement was merely a promising idea, almost nobody had ever
    heard of the Internet. A ten-year minimum, I believe, is more
    time than we need.''
        Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly
    propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people
    of Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens throughout the United
    States to conclude at the sunrise of the 21st Century an
    extremely significant item of unfinished business that has
    awaited this nation's undivided attention ever since the
    twilight hours of the 19th Century.
        To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Committee, you can count on me. You can count on me to work
    with you, with your Congressional colleagues, with the
    President and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count on
    my good faith and my goodwill and my unwavering commitment to
    the fundamental principles of civil rights and human dignity
    that this bill so eloquently embodies, the principles of
    liberty and justice for all.
        And may God bless each and every person who participates in
    this noble endeavor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. I want to compliment you
    on an excellent statement. Not only that, I was willing to give
    you a little more time. It is hard for a Governor or a Senator
    or a Congressman to put anything in five minutes, so I want to
    congratulate you. Excellently done.
        Mr. Rossello. We don't need much more time.
        The Chairman. All right, excellently done. I may have some
    questions, but I will defer to my good friend from Puerto Rico
    at this time and then go right down the line if you have any
    questions. You don't have to ask questions.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I don't have any questions for the
    Governor. I know we have talked a lot about this issue many,
    many times. I just want to congratulate him on his statement
    and everything that he has done to make sure that this process
    continues and we reach an agreement and have a vote by 1998 and
    then look forward to entering the new millennium with Puerto
    Rico no longer being a colony. Thank you.
        Mr. Rossello. Thank you to our Congressman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. I just want to thank Governor Rossello. It is
    good to see you again. I enjoyed my trip down to Puerto Rico
    last year and look forward to come down there again. And I
    share your concern about the ten years also. I would like to
    discuss that more fully with you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rossello. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Guam.
        Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Governor, for an excellent statement. It is true that it is
    hard to encapsulate all the emotions of the people within five
    minutes.
        Much has been made of the year 1898 in some of the previous
    testimony, and you alluded to it in terms of taking care of a
    problem that has been with us since the end of the 19th
    Century. I believe earlier it was stated that Puerto Rico is
    the longest running colony under the U.S. flag. I did some
    quick research during the break and found out that Guam nosed
    you out by one month.
        So I hope that the--in a way, it is a difficult issue to
    address, because I fully respect and understand that this is
    Puerto Rico's day and this is a day to analyze and understand
    the meaning and the impact of the Puerto Rican experience and
    how this country will deal with that. And actually in support
    of that, I have submit-

    ted--my earlier testimony was in support of that, and also as
    part of that I submitted a statement from Governor Gutierrez in
    his ca-

    pacity as Chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination that
    is in support of that.
        So it was some surprise, Mr. Chairman, that I note that
    there were some materials in the packets distributed about
    Guam. And in a sense I was--I am expressing some of my concern
    about that, but I just want to make the obvious distinction
    between Guam and Puerto Rico. The obvious distinction is that
    Puerto Rico, because of its size and its impact, I think, on
    the American consciousness, has a fuller range of options,
    viable political options, available to it than Guam has. But
    the fervor to deal with the issue is no less on Guam, and I am
    sure you understand and appreciate that.
        And while our--it is an interesting dynamic, because we are
    really linked in terms of the Spanish-American War. It always--
    I always found it fascinating that the Spanish-American War was
    fought allegedly over issues in the Caribbean, yet the first
    strikes were in the Philippines and Guam, which always leads me
    to believe that there was something else at stake in the minds
    of all the people who carried the American flag at that time.
    So while we nosed you out by a month, I look forward to
    resolving your issues and I will be courteous and hope that
    these issues will be resolved and will be patient, but I hope
    we don't have to wait too long after you. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Guam. He has been
    very persistent in discussing this issue with me, and I believe
    the literature in your documents--I was going to ask unanimous
    consent they be submitted for the record as it was requested.
        Mr. Miller. That is granted.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information may be found at end of hearing.] ???
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Good afternoon, Governor. Thank you
    for your testimony. I am concerned about the issues raised by
    Congresswoman Velazquez. And I wanted to know from you if you
    were satisfied that within the bill the Congress gives
    sufficient commitment to supporting the decision of the people
    of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Rossello. I think the bill addresses in a very positive
    fashion the valid alternatives that Puerto Rico should and
    would have. Essentially if we look at this from the perspective
    of answering one question, whether Puerto Rico wants to remain
    under U.S. sovereignty or not, then everything becomes very
    clear. If you want to remain under U.S. sovereignty, the
    Constitution addresses only two options. You can either be a
    State or you can be a territory under the plenary powers of
    Congress under the territorial law. Those are the two options
    if you answer the question that you want to remain under U.S.
    sovereignty with U.S. citizenship.
        If the answer is no, then you have the other panel. You can
    go toward a separate sovereignty under which you would have all
    the powers of any independent nation, or you could modify that
    by a treaty or a compact between two independent nations. But
    that would be outside the U.S. sovereignty and outside U.S.
    citizenship. In that sense, the question is very simple. You
    answer it yes or no. U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship and
    then you have these two options, or outside U.S. sovereignty
    with a separate citizenship and a separate sovereignty.
        From my perspective, if the question is answered that
    Puerto Rico should remain under U.S. sovereignty with U.S.
    citizenship, the option of remaining a territory, for me, is
    not valid, but I think it is pertinent and I suggested it and
    Chairman Young has accepted including the option of the current
    status under U.S. sovereignty and under the territorial clause
    as an option. I don't think it is valid. I don't think it is
    valid, but that is my personal opinion. But I think it allows
    everybody in Puerto Rico to have a valid option which they can
    support.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you.
        Ms. Cubin. Are there any further questions from anyone
    else? Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I
    certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to the
    Governor of Puerto Rico for his fine testimony. And I want to
    say I believe, Governor, it was by your suggestion of the
    process as we were reviewing the provisions of the previous
    bill that was introduced that the option of commonwealth also
    be included, given the fact that there are some very strong
    disagreements in the whole process, just as we have heard
    earlier from some of the Members. I had hoped that Congressman
    Serrano would be here, because his preference would have been
    don't even include the commonwealth option, it is either
    statehood or independence.
        And I wanted to ask you, as you know, there are so many--so
    much a mixture of views in the Congress as far as the issue of
    Puerto Rico is concerned. I don't need to say that. There are
    some Members who have very strong feelings who are advocating
    about the--and I hate to see Puerto Rico being used as a
    scapegoat concerning the English only or the English first
    debate that is now going on here in the halls of the Congress.
        I wanted to ask you, should the Congress equate statehood
    with dollars?
        Mr. Rossello. With what?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. With dollar signs. I am unfortunate to
    say that there will be some Members who view it strictly for
    the dollar signs rather than looking at it as a matter of
    principle. I believe my good friend from Puerto Rico has given
    indications earlier that if the people of Puerto Rico were to
    become a State, that your contributions toward the income tax
    system would be a lot more than what it would cost. And I think
    that is certainly commendable.
        But I--you know, at the time that we held hearings in
    Puerto Rico, Governor, as you well remember, the former
    candidate for president, Pat Buchanan, came out with a very
    strong accusation which I strongly disagreed with that this
    would create a welfare state for Puerto Rico should statehood
    become the option.
        But I wanted to ask your response. Should the Congress
    equate statehood with dollar signs?
        Mr. Rossello. I think that in discussing this issue the
    main parameter should be the parameter of civil rights. I have
    not seen anybody in this Congress saying that because a certain
    population in Alabama or Mississippi or Iowa is deprived of
    their citizen rights, that they will not move to ensure those
    citizens' rights on the basis of cost alone. I think it is a
    valid point to argue about, but I think when we discuss this we
    should have the cost related to statehood, to commonwealth and
    to independence. Each one has a cost. Each one has an economic
    cost and each one has political or other costs.
        So if we want to discuss the issue on that scenario, we
    have to make sure that we project the cost of remaining as we
    are now. And the costs are considerable. And I would suggest
    that the costs are higher than if you would go toward
    statehood, because at some time Puerto Rico will become a
    contributing partner to the union, to the nation. So if the
    cost issue is discussed, it has to be discussed on equal terms
    for all options.
        Independence has a cost, and we will hear and we have heard
    independence proponents suggest that the United States keep
    some measure of payments to Puerto Rico. So each one has some
    costs and we should define what those costs are and what the
    net flows of costing toward Puerto Rico and for Puerto Rico to
    the United States would be. And I think, again, the main issue
    here is one of civil rights, whether we can indeed keep 3.8
    million U.S. citizens from having their full citizen rights or
    in the opposite extreme allow them to be independent and
    exercise their full rights to a separate sovereignty.
        That is the basic issue here. The cost issue, I think, is
    pertinent, but it should not be overriding, and when it is
    analyzed it should be analyzed for the three options that are
    presented in this bill.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor, I appreciate you elaborating on
    that question I raised, but, you know, as far as I am concerned
    you can never equate any dollar sign to the----
        Mr. Rossello. I agree.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--blood the sons and
    daughters of Puerto Rico have shed for all these years in the
    wars that have been fought.
        Mr. Rossello. I agree with you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And I really--to me it is an insult to
    think that any option that Puerto Rican people should choose,
    that we have to put dollar signs to make that as a measurement.
    I think that the people of Puerto Rico have made the ultimate
    sacrifices, as they have already, and I sincerely hope that the
    Congress will be receptive to whatever option the Puerto Rican
    people decide for themselves in the future.
        Mr. Rossello. Thank you for your views. I share them
    totally, but since I know that we will not be able to curtail
    the debate, it will come up naturally as long as we are, in a
    sense, conscious of what the priorities are. And as long as we
    debate even those other aspects which may be economic or which
    may be others, that we keep in mind your eloquently stated
    position the rights of the people over the cost.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        Ms. Cubin. And the gentleman from Illinois, did you have
    some questions?
        Mr. Gutierrez. There are no other members of the Committee?
        Ms. Cubin. Oh, Mr. Kennedy.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
    Governor, for your testimony. I wanted to go back to a question
    I asked in the last panel and ask you to answer it as well. Put
    into context the plebiscite that has been the source of much
    consternation with respect to the confusion that was related to
    it so that we don't end up repeating past mistakes and further
    exacerbating the feeling of frustration of the Puerto Rican
    people about their own self-determination. Would you comment on
    Ms. Velazquez's points that she made in the last panel with
    respect to the 1953 agreement between the United States and the
    United Nations with respect to enhanced commonwealth, the fact
    that this country did not respect that and did not fully heed
    its obligations under that or whether it was part of the
    territorial status that you spoke about just in the past
    question that was asked. And is it possible to have a bilateral
    relationship as is promised by advanced commonwealth, or is
    that not possible? Could you explain whether--more about your
    opinions about these issues.
        Mr. Rossello. The 1993 referendum in Puerto Rico did have
    an effect. These hearings are the result of that referendum or
    that plebiscite. We have seen that the legislature of Puerto
    Rico on two occasions has asked the Congress to respond to
    those results of the 1993 plebiscite in Puerto Rico. It was a
    plebiscite that was locally authorized, did not have a
    commitment from Congress, and on the basis of that plebiscite
    the legislature on two occasions has asked Congress to act.
        I think this bill is a response to that 1993 plebiscite. I
    think this bill embodies the answer of Congress to the 1993
    plebiscite. And in doing its--in assuming its responsibilities
    under the Constitution of authorizing a Congressionally
    sponsored plebiscite with Congressionally defined, valid
    options, I think that is the most positive response that we
    would have expected from Congress. So I think that, yes, the
    1993 plebiscite has had its impact and the fact that we are
    immersed in this process now is ample evidence of that.
        Secondly, we have to go back to basics. It is not what each
    one of us wants, because I might be tempted to say in my
    definition of statehood that I would require the future State
    of Puerto Rico to have the landing rights to the moon, the
    lunar landing rights would be a part of the 51st State. Maybe I
    would want that, but is that valid? And so in the same sense I
    think we all, those who advocate statehood, those who advocate
    commonwealth, those who advocate independence or free
    association, should submit their views so that they be analyzed
    and finally stated as valid by the Congress, who I believe has
    the powers under the Constitution to legislate for the
    territories.
        So again, I think this process is one that allows that to
    happen. The Chairman and Ranking Democrat of this Committee
    have written to each one of the political parties in Puerto
    Rico and have allowed them to submit a proposed definition.
    Obviously, it may be different from 1993 where no limitation
    was placed on the definition that appeared on the ballot. This
    time there will be a so-called reality check. I am sure if I
    convinced my colleagues to submit a statehood definition that
    has the lunar landing rights for the 51st State, that would be
    taken out by Congress because it is not a valid option.
        So in essence I think we are seeing a process where there
    is input and there is, to a certain extent, an analysis and a
    validity check under the Constitution and under international
    law to make sure that the options that appear in the ballot are
    valid options.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Will the gentleman yield?
        Ms. Cubin. The gentleman's time is up. Are there any other
    Committee members who would have a question? I will finish with
    the Committee, and then I would love to recognize you, Mr.
    Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Governor,
    again, another--I think one of the most difficult issues that
    was derived as a result of the 1993 plebiscite was the fact
    that there was a plurality and not a clear majority.
        Mr. Rossello. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Now we are going through the process
    again. And let us say that the statehood obtains a 46 percent,
    commonwealth gets 42 and independentistas get 12. Do you have
    any suggestions how we resolve the continuous situation over
    plurality rather than the clear majority if it comes to that
    point in the future plebiscite?
        Mr. Rossello. Well, I think that there is almost--I
    wouldn't call it unanimous, but there is a consensus that the
    current status is one that is transitory. If we cannot make up
    our minds, then we remain in the current status, but this bill
    addresses that reality by saying that periodically the people
    of Puerto Rico would be consulted until they finally choose a
    stable and final status. So again, I hope that doesn't happen.
    If it happens, it is, you know, our own choosing. But if we
    cannot, so to speak, get our act together and by majority vote
    choose one of the paths to full self-government, then
    unfortunately we will remain in this transitory status until we
    make up our minds.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor, I thank you, because one of the
    problems, as I have seen over the years, I think one other
    major plebiscite that took place in Puerto Rico was since 1967.
    And then that was just kind of put on it, in fact, on the part
    of the Congress. We just didn't do anything despite, I am sure,
    there being a lot of proposals or a lot of offers from several
    administrations on behalf of the government of Puerto Rico.
    Still Congress did not act. Am I correct in that observation?
        Mr. Rossello. That is correct.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So this is where we are at now?
        Mr. Rossello. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And it is very easy to put the blame, the
    finger, on it and say who it is that was at fault. And I have
    to say, Madam Chairman, that we are not exactly angels
    ourselves in terms of what we should have done. We never did
    anything. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam.
        Ms. Cubin. Are there other Members who have questions? I
    came in late, so I don't know who was here first. The gentleman
    from Illinois.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you so much. Number one, let me
    welcome you here to the Congress of the United States and
    congratulate you on your resounding reelection victory last
    November as Governor of Puerto Rico and to share with you that
    outside of this I look forward to working with you on those
    issues. I wish you Godspeed in your mission during this next
    four years as Governor of Puerto Rico and look forward
    specifically to discussing and working with you on making
    economic viability of jobs in Puerto Rico and other kinds of
    social/economic issues viable in working with you in that
    spirit, Governor. Welcome once again.
        Two quick questions, Governor. I agree with the gentleman
    from American Samoa that we should not equate self-
    determination with dollars. But as you rightfully interpreted,
    this Congress will do that in terms of the admission of Puerto
    Rico as a State into the union should we arrive at that point.
        Let me just ask you, how do you see the process? Have you
    envisioned the process of Puerto Rico as a State, and what
    kinds of things do you see will happen differently than under
    the current status having the power of statehood that will
    allow you to grow and expand the franchise, the economic
    franchise in terms of contributions to what you will then be,
    part of the Nation as a whole.
        Mr. Rossello. Well, very basic in that respect is the power
    of participation. The same way you advocate for your district
    in Chicago, the same way you promote the development of
    business and business opportunities very forcefully for the
    people that elected you, I would see that a major component of
    allowing Puerto Rico to really compete on a equal basis would
    be the representation that Puerto Rico would have in this body.
    We would have certainly two Senators. We would have six to
    seven Congress persons here in this body that makes decisions
    about economic matters and about social matters.
        So essentially if you look at the history, if you look at
    the fact that was mentioned here before, some territories
    before like Alaska and the differences when they were territory
    to the rest of the economic parameters of the States and you
    look at Puerto Rico, 50 years ago Puerto Rico had 50 percent of
    the income per capita that Mississippi had. Fifty years later,
    Puerto Rico still has 50 percent.
        So if you are concerned about the development of Puerto
    Rico in reaching more equitable levels of economic development,
    then you should think of the current status as one that limits
    the possibilities of Puerto Rico and which by history you have
    seen many of the previous territories that have inferior
    economic parameters when they were territories move up toward
    more equitable levels of economic development.
        So I think the--it is intrinsic in being a part of the
    system if you are a part of the system and you are
    participating in decisions, the system will allow you to come
    up to the level of other jurisdictions.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Governor, for that answer. One
    other question. As we look at--earlier I suggested, Governor,
    that sometimes I am a little perplexed at just how we deal with
    1952 and the adoption of the free association and subsequently
    going to the United Nations and independentistas going before
    the United Nations and saying, you know, that is really not
    enough, adding an extra paragraph or saying that mutually the
    United States and the people of Puerto Rico are going to have
    to develop this free association so that it can reach full
    self-determination. But that really did happen, that historical
    linkage did exist.
        Now as we go into the future, given the fact that in 1952
    it was established by Congress to the United Nations that you
    could have an autonomous version of free association between
    Puerto Rico and the United States, which would decolonize it
    because they accepted it as decolonizing at the United Nations,
    that allowed there to continue to be American citizenship of
    the nationals in Puerto Rico in that relationship, what is
    changed today that will not allow, in your opinion, for there
    to be such a status, or proposal maybe, for the people of
    Puerto Rico that would continue to allow American citizenship
    as a guarantee under that status?
        Mr. Rossello. Congressman Gutierrez, if you look at the
    records of Congress, it amply supported and was very clear that
    Congress never intended changing the basic relationship between
    the United States and Puerto Rico, that what Congress did--and
    this is in all Congressional records. What Congress did was to
    statutorily allow the people of Puerto Rico to adopt a
    constitution for internal affairs and internal government.
    External relation between Puerto Rico and the United States was
    not changed. In no--it is stated in a positive way in every
    area of the Congressional record, and in no place can you see
    where Congress said that it would be renouncing its power under
    the territorial clause.
        An interesting thing happened on the way. Both at the
    United Nations and to the people of Puerto Rico a different
    story was taken. And I think it is time that we look at that,
    and it is time to reconcile what was actually done with what
    was projected.
        Having said that, I must say that I do not wish to enter
    into a war of recriminations, who was right, who was wrong. But
    let us start from here and let us solve the problem. Let us say
    what are the alternatives that are valid internationally under
    the United Nations. And I have been to the United Nations with
    many of my colleagues here. And let us forget about the
    interpretation, because for me it is very clear. However, if we
    are really committed to solving this, let us go forward and not
    so much look backwards.
        In looking forward, the United Nations is very clear as to
    what options can be offered territorial jurisdictions. One is
    integration, full integration, which is statehood. The other is
    full independence. And the third is a form of free association,
    which has to be, again, under two separate sovereignties that
    reach an agreement. So again, I go back to my initial position
    that the basic question we have to answer is whether we want to
    be within U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship or without
    U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship. Very simple. And that is
    totally consistent with what the international community
    accepts today as ending colonialism.
        If you go to the United Nations and you say that you have a
    jurisdiction which does not participate and does not elect
    representatives that have a major decisional power over the
    inhabitants of that jurisdiction, they will tell you that that
    is a colony. And that is the real situation in Puerto Rico
    today.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Governor, thank you for your answers. And I
    will, after this meeting, evaluate them very carefully so that
    I can continue to work with the members of this Committee to
    see if we can't foster a relationship that will end the
    colonial situation in Puerto Rico. And I look forward to
    working with you once again. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Cubin. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you Chairlady. Mr. Governor, thank you
    being here and welcome. You know, it is really very troubling
    for me to listen to interpretation of what happened in 1952.
    And in some ways when you state that the United States
    government has been misrepresenting and that what occurred in
    1952.
        And what took place in 1953 was the bilateral compact was
    ratified by Resolution 748 at the United Nations and that the
    United States went--the government went to the United Nations
    and stated very clear that there was a self-government
    established in Puerto Rico by nature of a bilateral compact. So
    that happened and now you are telling us your interpretation.
        We could clearly state that what this government has been
    doing has been a political sham and a charade that didn't
    respect the people of Puerto Rico and that this government has
    a responsibility to repair the damage and the pain that it has
    caused to the people of Puerto Rico.
        When my colleague Patrick Kennedy asked you the question in
    reference to what I stated earlier, I think you didn't answer
    that because specifically he was referring to the fact that
    there was a bilateral compact that was agreed upon by the
    people of Puerto Rico and this government.
        Mr. Rossello. If you are asking me, I am still looking for
    that bilateral compact. I haven't found it anyplace.
        Ms. Velazquez. Well----
        Mr. Rossello. All I found is a statute by the U.S. Congress
    allowing Puerto Rico to establish a constitution for internal
    affairs. Nowhere--you are here in Congress. You can look at the
    records. Nowhere in Congressional Records--and this is where
    the decision was taken. It was not taken at the United Nations.
    It was taken here. And in this body nowhere does it say that
    Congress abdicates or renounces its Constitutional prerogatives
    over any of the territories, including Puerto Rico. So if that
    wasn't changed, then the relationship between Puerto Rico and
    the United States was not changed.
        Now, I cannot answer for what other people, including the
    government of Puerto Rico at that time, represented to the
    people of Puerto Rico. I think that was a misrepresentation,
    yes.
        Ms. Velazquez. And I think later on, Mr. Chairman, we are
    going to have the Administration testify presenting their
    position.
        The Chairman. Oh, yes.
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes, and----
        The Chairman. You better read their testimony. It is quite
    interesting.
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes, well----
        The Chairman. I----
        Ms. Velazquez. My concern is, Mr. Chairman, that I would
    like with your permission to request that a copy of the
    transcript that took place in 1953 be included as part of this
    hearing--at the United Nations.
        The Chairman. I don't----
        Mr. Miller. I would support that.
        The Chairman. I would suggest in all due respect--ever time
    we hear the word United Nations, I get a little antsy, so----
        Ms. Velazquez. Well----
        The Chairman. I understand. I understand.
        Ms. Velazquez. It works when it is a way for the United
    States to go and to deal with public opinion about something
    that went wrong. And this government is responsible for that.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Would the Congresswoman yield?
        Ms. Velazquez. Sure.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I wanted to add that it was not only
    the national government, the U.S. Government that went to the
    United Nations and misrepresented what happened, but also the
    government of Puerto Rico corroborated with that
    misrepresentation. And they collaborated in the United Nations
    and they misrepresented it also to the people of Puerto Rico
    and have been misrepresenting it to the people of Puerto Rico
    for all these years.
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my minutes are still----
        The Chairman. I am not arguing that. Go right ahead.
        Ms. Velazquez. I just would like to say that is why in my
    statement before I made it very clear that it is important that
    we offer and we provide to the people of Puerto Rico every
    information and the facts about each formula that will be
    presented to the people of Puerto Rico, because then maybe two
    years later or four years later we are going to come back and
    say well, I wasn't part of that, you know. So it is really
    troubling. We need to provide the people of Puerto Rico with
    every information and every fact so that we do not come back
    and say, oh, I am sorry, that wasn't part of the record, that
    wasn't part of what we intended.
        The Chairman. I agree. I will say this in defense of the
    people of Puerto Rico. If I had as many people in my great
    State and other States as interested in the process,
    participate in the process as much as it does in Puerto Rico, I
    would be quite proud. When I see 47 percent of the people
    voting nationwide in a Presidential election, it is very
    discouraging. Puerto Rico is quite high when they have
    participation.
        The gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first preface
    my comments, Governor, by also welcoming you. You visit us on a
    regular basis, so it is a re-welcome. And, as you know, I grew
    up in New York. I am one of those New Yorkers who grew up, like
    so many other Americans, during the Vietnam era, in a love/
    distrust relationship with my government, loving my government,
    loving my country that I was being raised in, but distrusting a
    lot of what they told me about Vietnam and about a lot of other
    things.
        So it doesn't surprise me that my government didn't tell
    the truth in 1950, '51 and '52. In fact, I know that they
    didn't tell the truth. I know they don't tell the truth now
    when they say Puerto Rico is equal. It is not. Ask my cousins.
    They are not equal and they are not independent.
        Now I notice, Governor, that--you might have answered my
    question already, but I want you to elaborate somewhat on it.
    There must have been a process for you and your party, and
    those who have been in your party before you, to reach a point
    where you can comfortably use the word ``colony'' and the
    phrase ``colonial status''. Was that done through a difficult
    situation within the party, or did the party reach that from
    the kind of comments that you brought up here today?
        In other words, how does your party agree with the
    independence party on the point that it is a colonial status?
        Mr. Rossello. I think we agree because we are looking at
    the facts. And if history shows us the different steps that
    were taken and if at the end of that route we apply a litmus
    test as to whether a jurisdiction is represented
    democratically, whether it is enfranchised or not, then you
    have to reach the conclusion no matter what happened here that
    this is a colonial status. That is why I again urge this
    Committee and Congress to put aside the historical
    contradictions.
        If we are really committed to solving this problem, and I
    think if you look around the room you see that this is almost
    100-year-old problem. We should be able to solve that. And
    again, as Governor of Puerto Rico, whatever the people decide,
    that is what it will be. I have my own choice, but whatever the
    people of Puerto Rico decide. They should know the valid
    options. If we spend so much time arguing about what somebody
    said in the United Nations, I gather we will reach conflicting
    opinions, because in the United Nations everybody said whatever
    they wanted.
        I have been to the United Nations. I have been at hearings.
    Many of my colleagues here have also. And we can argue about
    this forever, but again I urge you let us not get bogged down.
    If we feel like I think everybody here feels, that this
    continuous debate over status is holding us back, then let us
    solve it. If we, as I think all of us agree here, if we feel
    that we cannot get together on education and on health and on
    job creation because we have different views which do not allow
    us to come together on those basic issues, let us solve the
    problem now. Let us not look backwards. Let us look forward.
        And I suggest again that this is a historic opportunity. We
    will be having 100 years when this problem was first presented,
    almost 100 years. We are also nearing a new millennium, a new
    century, which also should allow us to be open in our minds and
    allow us to look at change as something natural. And when we
    look at all these things, I think everything is coming together
    so that we can finally solve this problem for the good of the
    people of Puerto Rico and also for all U.S. citizens in our
    nation. And if we take this opportunity to just squabble a
    little bit more as to what happened in 1952, I think we will be
    degrading from what I think is a very noble objective of this
    bill presented by Chairman Young.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me see, Governor, if I have some time left
    here--I just wonder if you personally have taken a look--my red
    light just went on.
        The Chairman. I will give you 30 seconds.
        Mr. Serrano. OK, on the issue of the stateside vote, and
    what feelings you have personally on whether, first of all, it
    could be carried out and if it has any merit.
        Mr. Rossello. I have problems on two areas, two levels. One
    is what Carlos Romero-Barcelo mentioned. It is very difficult
    for me to think of people that will not suffer or benefit from
    the consequences of a decision to be involved in that decision.
    If you would tell me that the people that voted that were
    outside of Puerto Rico, not residents of Puerto Rico, would
    live by the consequences, if the people that voted here and
    voted for independence would be willing to give up their
    citizenship and go back to Puerto Rico and live under a
    separate nation, then I think that would be valid. But if you
    are telling me that people will be voting and then not really
    living the consequences of that decision, that is very hard for
    me to accept.
        The other part is what you mentioned, and I think it is
    lesser of an objection, that we have established in Puerto
    Rico, I think, a very credible electoral process and structure
    which allows everybody that wants to participate to have
    participation. How will you extend that same privilege to the
    Puerto Ricans either born in Puerto Rico or children of people
    born in Puerto Rico throughout the 50 States? And I think it
    might be easy to do it in New York and it might be easy to do
    it, maybe, in Illinois, but some of the other States might be a
    little bit more difficult. So that is a practical question that
    I have. It doesn't mean that if you come up with a practical
    solution to that practical question I will----
        Mr. Serrano. I think the greatest country on earth can pull
    it off if they wish to pull the vote outside.
        Mr. Rossello. If that----
        Mr. Serrano. And, just in closing, Governor, we have been
    living the consequences. My parents are buried in the Bronx
    because we lived the consequences of forced migration. So in
    many ways we have already lived the consequences of the status.
    We are willing to roll some dice on what the future
    consequences will be.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the Governor. You have been
    on the stand now for an hour and 20 minutes and you also sat
    here all day, and I want to congratulate you on that and your
    excellent testimony. And you are excused.
        Mr. Rossello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Next we have the Honorable Ruben Martinez,
    President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, San Juan,
    Puerto Rico. Mr. President, you can sit down anytime you would
    like to, and as soon as it quiets down we will proceed.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question for a
    second?
        The Chairman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Serrano. I noticed you referred to Senator Berrios as
    President. Is that an opening for future----
        The Chairman. Very frankly, I think it would be an
    excellent improvement. He is better looking, and he doesn't
    fall down as often. Go ahead.

     STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRIOS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE PUERTO
            RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee, for almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political
    persuasions have struggled unsuccessfully for the recognition
    of our full political rights as a people before a Congress that
    has for the most part been hostile or insensitive to our
    demands. Today on the verge of the 21st Century, it is a source
    of optimism that Congress finally begins to recognize its
    centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico.
        But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable
    instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico's status problem,
    certain condi-

    tions should be met and certain pitfalls avoided, some of which
    require major changes in the bill. One of them is the essential
    objective and nature of the bill must be maintained at all
    costs. This bill unambiguously faces and proposes a solution to
    the fundamental issue of sovereignty by promoting a decision
    within two paths, one under U.S. sovereignty leading to
    statehood and the other under Puerto Rico sovereignty leading
    either to independence or free association. Territorial
    commonwealth, on the other hand, is viewed as a problem to be
    outgrown and superseded.
        Two, so long as this fundamental objective is preserved,
    the legitimate interest and demands of all the participants in
    the status debate must be provided reasonable accommodation. In
    this context, while independence and free association, as
    modalities of Puerto Rican sovereignty, must continue to be
    grouped under the same heading on the proposed plebiscite
    ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified.
    Free association and independence are members of the same
    family, but they are first cousins, not identical twins.
        I propose, therefore, that the bill be amended to flesh out
    the free association and independent modalities within the
    separate sovereignty alternative, or as I prefer to call it the
    Puerto Rican sovereignty alternative. Once free association has
    been reformulated to address the legitimate concerns of its
    proponents, it will be totally unnecessary to include the
    territorial status quo as an option. Even the Popular
    Democratic Party rejects that option of an unincorporated
    territory subject to the powers of Congress under the
    territorial clause. It would be a perversion of the concept of
    inclusiveness to include a colonial or territorial option that
    nobody favors.
        Three, this bill at least should reflect a sense of
    Congress regarding the truly critical questions which you will
    have to face and answer in case of a statehood petition.
    Congress should not convey the impression that a mere majority
    vote in the plebiscite is the only condition for statehood. I
    am convinced that if this bill is perceived in Congress as
    implicit commitment to grant statehood after a majority vote by
    the Puerto Rican electorate, it may never become law.
        In this context, crucial questions regarding statehood for
    Puerto Rico arise which should be addressed in this bill, even
    though Congress cannot answer these questions in a way that
    will bind the future Congress. Is it the sense of Congress that
    statehood for Puerto Rico would be possible unless English
    becomes the primary or common language of Puerto Ricans? Would
    statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico's per
    capita income remains one-third that of the United States and
    one-half that of your poorest State considering the
    repercussions of that reality on the Federal treasury? Is
    statehood conceivable without an overwhelming political
    consensus in its favor in Puerto Rico? Is Congress willing to
    face a Caribbean Quebec if a minority for separate sovereignty
    should become a majority in the next generation?
        At a minimum, Congress should make clear that if statehood
    achieves a sufficient majority, but does not then act favorably
    on the petition within a reasonable period of time, then
    statehood should be deemed to have been rejected. In such an
    eventuality, the bill should provide that in order to achieve
    its primary decolonizing objectives, the people of Puerto Rico
    should then choose between the remaining alternatives, that is
    between independence and free association.
        Four, fairness and objectivity should be maintained
    regarding the status definitions as they refer to the potential
    economic effects of the different alternatives. Congress has
    constitutional and international obligations with Puerto Rico's
    decolonization, in addition to moral and legal commitments
    after 100 years of U.S. occupation. In this context, Congress
    should be explicit in its willingness to obtain a smooth and
    fair transition toward independence as well as regarding the
    creation of a reparations or development fund.
        Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive
    prerogative of statehood and are clearly available for
    independence in this age of globalization and regional economic
    arrangements.
        Five, it is of the utmost importance that Congress face the
    matter of U.S. citizenship under Puerto Rican sovereignty in a
    clear and realistic manner. Let us begin by separating myth
    from fact. I am firmly convinced that the principal value that
    the immense majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their U.S.
    citizenship is their right to travel freely to and from the
    United States. One should remember that free transit and free
    trade have been part of the U.S.-Puerto Rico relations since
    1900, 17 years before Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens.
        As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation, if
    Congress expresses or implies that free transit is only
    possible under statehood, it would be promoting an artificial
    pro-statehood majority that has nothing to do with the spirit
    of patriotic commitment to the United States, which should be
    the real basis of a serious pro-statehood sentiment. Loyalty to
    one's nation and freedom to travel to other nations are, as
    Americans well know, two different things.
        As far as we independentistas are concerned, we aspire
    exclusively to our own Puerto Rican citizenship in an
    independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Rican born
    before independence who want to retain their U.S. citizenship
    after independence, they should be allowed to retain it.
        As regard Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress
    would be wise to allow for free transit arrangements within
    both countries. The European community stands as an example of
    this type of free transit agreement. Moreover, I remind you
    that a very large percentage of the Puerto Rican nationals
    reside in the United States. And it was the U.S. who, after the
    invasion of our nation, created and promoted free transit.
        Six, the bill should be amended to substantially reduce the
    timeframe provided for the full implementation of the different
    alternatives.
        Seven, to guarantee that all the options have adequate and
    equal access to public funding in the plebiscite campaign.
        And eight, the bill should be amended as to who will have
    the right to vote in the plebiscite. It should be obvious that
    if the plebiscite is not a general election to select public
    officials but a special election to advance the cause of self-
    determination of the Puerto Rican people, only Puerto Ricans
    and not merely residents of Puerto Rico should have the right
    to vote. By Puerto Ricans I mean those born in Puerto Rico or
    of Puerto Rican parents who reside in Puerto Rico or though
    residing outside have the intention to return to live in Puerto
    Rico. As an exception, those non-Puerto Ricans who have lived
    in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and who intend
    to remain should have the right to participate also.
        Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the
    historical record straight concerning the participation of my
    party, the Puerto Rican Independence Party, in this process.
    The Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that statehood
    or integration into the United States as a State of the Union
    is not a valid solution to the colonial problem of Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature, Spanish-speaking, Latin
    American Caribbean nation. To argue that Puerto Rico is not a
    nation is as absurd as to argue that blacks in the U.S. were
    not human beings before the abolition of slavery.
        For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a
    dilution, if not an abdication, of our right to govern
    ourselves as Puerto Ricans, no matter how intensely we exercise
    our voting franchise. The problem of Puerto Rico, contrary to
    what the Governor of Puerto Rico thinks and has expressed here,
    is not a problem of disenfranchisement of a minority or an
    issue of civil rights, as some people believe. It is not a
    problem of individual rights. It is a problem of national
    rights, of the inalienable rights of a nation, of a people, to
    govern themselves.
        Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a
    people to our distinct identity, ``Jibaro'' statehood they call
    it. Puerto Ricans of all persuasions proudly and forcefully
    proclaim that Puerto Rico's language and culture are not
    negotiable under any status. You should be aware, therefore,
    that the primary loyalty of Puerto Ricans is to Puerto Rico,
    not to the United States or to any other nation. Quebec and
    Ireland are but contemporary reminders of the dangers that
    ensue when nations attempt to absorb other nations. Nations by
    definition cannot give up their inalienable right to self-
    determination and independence, that is, their right to secede.
        Independence, on the other hand, members of this Committee,
    is the ultimate empowerment necessary to break the cycle of
    impotence and dependence which has become endemic to our
    colonial relationship, which would only become more acute under
    statehood and which inhibits our development and undermines our
    dignity and our self esteem. Moreover, it would be the
    beginning of an end of ever-increasing dependence on the
    Federal budget and a source of goodwill toward Latin America.
        We are thus convinced, Mr. Chairman, that when the process
    comes to an end here in Congress, the United States Government
    will come to the conclusion that the only true option for both
    our countries is independence, but we are not there yet. We are
    not there yet, and it is thus necessary that the process work
    its way.
        The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the
    essential equality of nations in the same way that the relation
    between master and slave denies the essential equality of human
    beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the
    colonizer. For the honor and respect of both our nations, let
    us bring it to an end. Thank you very much.
        [Statement of Ruben Berrios-Martinez may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. President. I always enjoy your
    presentations. You do it with enthusiasm and belief, and I
    admire that. As I was sitting here listening to you, we have a
    party in my State that you probably could run for and win and
    do quite well, just to give you an idea. Unfortunately we lost
    our leader up there two years ago. And I will also compliment
    you on the suggested revisions of the bill. Although I may not
    agree with all of them, definitely they were very constructive
    suggestions. And I often think if more witnesses would do that,
    I think we could probably work a lot more of our problems out.
    Those that just say no sometimes give me great concern. So I do
    thank you.
        And at this time I am going to turn the chair over to
    Carlos for a few moments. I have another appointment I have to
    meet with some of my constituents. I will be right back, so if
    he--watch him. Make sure he runs this fairly. Watch this
    bipartisan relationship here. I want you to know that I didn't
    go to Hershey. I don't need to go to Hershey, you see.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Before you leave, Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I would like to tell you in all
    honesty that it is a real pity that Alaskans were Americanized
    before they could become a U.S. State and therefore their right
    to self-determination is a quivering subject.
        The Chairman. It is not dead yet, because we have now a new
    era in Alaska where there is approximately 110,000 American
    natives that have decided that they may want to be sovereign
    within a State. This is a very interesting discussion, by the
    way.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [presiding] We will proceed with the
    questions. We will start with the Congressman from Samoa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want certainly
    to commend Senator Martinez, President of the Independentista
    Party for not only his eloquence but certainly his firm
    commitment to the cause that hopefully the people of Puerto
    Rico will be granted independence to become a sovereign nation.
    I did note in your comments that in the recommendations about
    some of these issues that the Congress will have to clarify,
    but it is becoming very controversial in and of itself. You had
    indicated earlier that--in your statement that commonwealth and
    independence are not identical twins but they are brother and
    sister relationship? Oh, they are cousins? First cousins or
    third cousins?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I said first cousins, but not
    identical twins. Not commonwealth and independence, free
    association and independence.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I
    mean, I think and I am sure that we will hear from those who
    are supportive of commonwealth. You have indicated also about
    territorial commonwealth. Is there a distinction with that of
    free association?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Of course. The bill recognizes it. It
    describes commonwealth in its first part and then goes into
    free association as a different alternative. But I must add
    here that once the free association modality is fleshed out and
    it is clearly distinguished from the independence modality
    within the separate sovereignty portion, then obviously the
    territorial commonwealth as it is described in the bill becomes
    totally irrelevant, because nobody wants that, not even the
    populares.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Ruben, do you think that--when you say
    that not even that populares, it is obviously that the
    leadership doesn't want it, but do you really believe that some
    of the popularity people don't want it either?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Well, we will have to see about that
    in the next months, but obviously I am talking about what the
    leadership has publicly said, at least before today.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. When you think about free association,
    do you think about free association with citizenship, U.S.
    citizenship, or----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, that is up to the defenders of
    free association to say. I propose my ideas regarding
    independence and free transit, not with citizenship, but the
    issue of citizenship is something the free association
    defenders will have to address.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. The gentlelady from Virgin
    Islands.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of
    voting in this plebiscite came up with the prior panel, and on
    that issue, the issue of non-Puerto Ricans, as you referred to
    who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time
    was left----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Vague.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Vague. Do you have some specific
    recommendations?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. It was purposely left vague so we can
    talk about it here and in the Senate. But I have no--for
    example, what the now-present Chairman asked before--I have no
    doubt that people like his wife who has become an integral part
    of the Puerto Rican community, of course she would have the
    right to vote without any doubt whatsoever. What number of
    years, I am not sure about that. We have talked about 20, 15,
    25. We should talk about it, but we can reach an agreement on
    that.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Just one other technical question on
    the issue of separate sovereignty. In the interest of fairness
    and making each option equitable, would you suggest that it be
    left as separate sovereignty? That suggests a bit of
    negativity. You didn't specifically make a recommendation, but
    would you recommend that it be changed to Puerto Rican----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Of course. That is what I said when--
    I am sorry. I would prefer to separate sovereignty, Puerto
    Rican sovereignty. What I meant is; it should be corrected. Let
    me say that regarding the issue of separate sovereignty it
    should be clearly stated that I refer to the legitimate demands
    of the defenders of free association. What is legitimate or not
    legitimate is for this Congress to decide and for us to decide
    to propose to this Congress. I didn't want to dwell on that
    issue, either. I just wanted to make this as all-encompassing
    as possible.
        And I must add here that I don't know why commonwealth
    should be described as nothing else or nothing more than what
    it is, an unincorporated territory. Why dedicate eight or ten
    paragraphs to it. If you just say it is an unincorporated
    territory of the United States, we would avoid some of the
    discussions we have had in Puerto Rico. I mean, we would go
    into the historical discussion regarding 1950, you know.
        If we agree that this is no good anymore or doesn't serve a
    good purpose anymore, let us talk about the future. If you want
    to describe commonwealth, describe it as an unincorporated
    territory and period. Don't put any more adjectives on it,
    because then it would look unbalanced. And if it looks
    unbalanced, it won't be approved. It will be approved in the
    House but not in the Senate, because many Senators and
    Congressmen have legitimate questions regarding statehood. And
    obviously they will push for a balanced bill to be presented,
    because if not they will interpret it as a statehood bill.
        If this is interpreted as a statehood bill, I repeat, it
    won't go through Congress. And we want this bill to go through
    Congress. So we should do everything in our power to be
    flexible enough in order to accommodate all participants and to
    have a just and balanced and equitable bill. And I think that
    can be reached.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I just want to add that as far as we
    are concerned, from my experience of talking to other Members
    of Congress, I feel very, very, very assured that this bill
    will go through at least the House. And it is gaining momentum
    in the Senate. But I can assure you that it is--there is
    support in the House for this bill.
        Regarding the right of the persons to vote that live
    outside Puerto Rico, I just want to ask a couple of questions
    for the record. We have had two plebiscites in Puerto Rico, one
    in 1967 and one in 1993. Who was allowed to vote in 1967?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. The voters--the franchise was
    determined by the Puerto Rican electoral law, which is the same
    way as it would be now under the bill. That is why we propose
    an amendment.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. In other words, the 1967 plebiscite
    when commonwealth was established, the people who voted were
    the resident--U.S. citizens who were residents of Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. That is correct.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And that was the same in 1993?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. That is correct.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Now there is a request that the rules
    be changed for this plebiscite?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. That is our request. That is correct.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you really feel that the Congress
    and the people in the Senate and House would feel that well
    about saying that your citizens who reside in Puerto Rico just
    because they were not born there do not vote? Do you think that
    would be----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I don't think--I don't know how they
    will feel, but I do know in justice only Puerto Ricans should
    vote, notwithstanding the fact of how some U.S. citizens or
    some U.S. Congressmen might think. We have been feeling very
    much for what other people believe or think or feel, and it is
    about time we push for what we think should be just and
    equitable and let other people worry about their own feelings.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you think there will be court
    proceedings if people are left out of the vote if they have
    lived--were you a citizen that resided in Puerto Rico when----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Maybe there would be, but I remind
    the Chairman that under the territorial clause there is very,
    very large latitude for the U.S. Congress to act contrary to
    other types of----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I think----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. If it were not under the territorial
    clause, we couldn't be doing what we are doing now here. So the
    same thing happens as regarding voting requirements. You can be
    lax, flexible, have latitude, refer to international law. I
    think we can manage that.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. There will still be a lot of----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yes, there will be. I imagine there
    will be people who will go to--but there will be people who
    might go also to court for the other reason, arguing that
    somebody who has lived in Puerto Rico for seven years and who
    is not a Puerto Rican either by birth or by virtue by being
    born to a Puerto Rican father and mother has a right to defend
    the future of Puerto Ricans. I think that can be taken to court
    also.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy.
        Mr. Kennedy. No questions at this time.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Gutierrez.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First of
    all, I would like to say thank you very much for the statement
    that you prepared. I read it last night and it helped me
    immensely as your statements and your positions have always
    helped me in the past to prepare for today's hearing and to
    have some clarity about just how we should proceed on the
    questions of the decolonization of Puerto Rico. So, Senator, I
    would like to thank you for that, and thank you for the long
    history of dedication and commitment that you have brought to
    the struggle for Puerto Rican independence and for justice in
    Puerto Rico. I think your contributions have been enormous and
    I thank you for them, not only in my own capacity, but I am
    sure in the name of all of the Members of Congress who are here
    today.
        Senator and President of the Independence Party, I spoke
    about and I know you spoke about independence and the issue of
    fairness. So if you could describe to this Committee how you
    see the definition of independence as proposed before the
    people of Puerto Rico that would be fair, that would give you
    equity and fairness.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Well, to start with, I think that can
    be accomplished here and over in the Senate because it is to
    the convenience of both parties. If it were only convenient to
    Puerto Rico, what I propose, I venture to say we wouldn't get
    too far. But since it is convenient for both parties to have a
    prosperous, exemplary democratic republic in Puerto Rico, then
    we can be sure that we can work out a way.
        Free trade, for example, is now a reality not only in
    Europe, but in NAFTA as to Mexico and Canada. So to ask for
    free trade, it is nothing new. Besides, what is the
    alternative, free trade forever under statehood? It is not
    going to be worse under independence.
        Second, free transit; the same way. Free transit is now an
    arrangement between many countries in the world. What is the
    alter-

    native in statehood? It is free transit forever and for future
    generations also.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Excuse me just to advise the Members of
    Congress that was two bells. The vote on the Goodling amendment
    to H.R. 1 is now on the Floor.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. A reparations or development fund is
    the only way to cut dependence in a sensible manner and still
    guarantee that we are going to be full trading partners to the
    United States and a good place for investment, because what we
    propose is a reparations fund that goes across or cuts across
    ten years--or a different figure--or 12 years or 8 or 15. We
    can talk about that. And then at the end of that period, that
    ceases; but that means that we would be able to develop our
    economy through these reparations funds for a period of ten
    years.
        Besides this issue, I should for the record clarify in
    order to answer your question that if Puerto Ricans saved in
    purchases to the outside world under independence one percent
    of what they today import during ten years, and if at the same
    time they substitute by Puerto Rican production (in many areas,
    particularly food stuffs), one percent of what we import, that
    two percent over a ten-year period will be equivalent to more
    than the amount of the full Federal aid today in Puerto Rico.
        So once we have the powers of sovereignty to trade with
    other nations and to bring in Japanese, European, besides
    American capital, to develop our economy and with these new
    tools we can really make a prosperous economy in Puerto Rico.
    What is the alternative? To become a permanently underdeveloped
    region of the United States with six representatives or seven
    and two senators asking for whatever is left from the people of
    the United States? Another Appalachia; because on what basis
    would Puerto Rico be able to attract U.S. capital, not to speak
    about Japanese and not to speak about German capital in Puerto
    Rico. In the republic of Puerto Rico we would have the tools to
    fully build our economy.
        The only alternative under statehood is U.S. citizenship or
    free transit in order to have more Luis Gutierrez and more Jose
    Serrano, which are very good people, in the United States
    instead of in Puerto Rico where we would like to have you. So
    it would be the depopulation of Puerto Rico and the conversion
    of Puerto Rico into a permanent underdeveloped region of the
    United States because statehood provides no alternatives for
    the economic development of Puerto Rico save more food coupons
    or more welfare. There is no way people in Maricao, you
    understand me, can attract capital to Maricao if the factory
    can establish itself in Bayamon. They will always go to Bayamon
    and they will never go to Maricao.
        For that same reason they will go somewhere else in the
    continental United States and not to Puerto Rico. That is why
    Hawaii is a tourist and military bases economy. That is why it
    is not an industrial economy. So the real reasons economically
    for Puerto Rican empowerment under independence, is to fully
    develop our economy. And that will in exchange be beneficial
    for export to the United States and for better trading
    relations.
        So that is our idea of a fully developed economy. There are
    15 or 20 smaller nations than Puerto Rico who in the last 25
    years have passed Puerto Rico in economic development, with
    higher per capita growth annually than Puerto Rico. And that is
    what we have to look for, for the powers of a republic; to add
    flexibility; to break this dependence with the United States;
    not to break our friendship but our dependence, and to become
    interdependent with the whole world. That is what independence
    is for.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman,
    thank you. I would just like to end by saying, Mr. President, I
    noticed how well prepared--as he always is, but he seemed
    exemplary prepared this morning, Congressman Jose Serrano. And
    I would attribute it to the fact that you visited with him the
    last time you came. And without getting jealous or anything
    about the situation, since I did vote for you twice and I
    believe he has never lived in Puerto Rico and participated, I
    would hope that the next time you come you would----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Well, I am sure----
        Mr. Gutierrez. [continuing]--also visit me so that we can
    continue to engage in----
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I hope Mr. Serrano will vote for me
    next time and that you will keep your vote as you have always.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. I asked, in fact, before, when Representative
    Young called you Mr. President, if that was a message for the
    future. I have no problems. And thank you for reminding me I
    never lived in Puerto Rico; just a couple of years. But I will
    remind you I was born there.
        Senator, throughout history, at least in my lifetime of
    understanding or trying to understand Puerto Rican issues, it
    was the Independence Party and the independentistas who were
    most often persecuted, not only outside the island but inside
    the island. And yet it is interesting that today, and
    throughout this debate, we are going to hear how the people who
    were empowered all those years by the status, not the people
    but the status, feel persecuted at this juncture of the
    situation.
        So my question to you, which is related somewhat to Luis'
    question, with the changes you propose, is: is this bill a fair
    bill for the independence option? I am not asking if
    independence is fair. You already answered that. Is this bill,
    with the changes proposed, a fair bill? Would you walk away
    from this process and go back to the island and say we can
    vote, on what is up there in Washington because it is a fair
    deal?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. It is not fair, because we have this
    historical prejudice against us. We would need many years in
    order to be able to preach in a free way which would compensate
    for what people have been led to believe through persecution,
    through public instruction in the schools, through denigrating
    everything that is Puerto Rican; through telling us that we
    cannot stand on our own two feet. You know, that takes
    generations. But we cannot wait a generation, because we might
    not have Puerto Rico left in a couple of generations. We need
    to act fast. So within the context of these limitations, we
    would see it as a fair bill if many of our conditions or
    amendments are introduced.
        It is a very interesting thing, and I cannot resist the
    temptation--I cannot resist it. Excuse me, but those who were
    accomplices in the U.N. in 1952 now want to appear as victims.
    To me that is an incredible proposition. You know, of course
    the United States lied in 1952 before the U.N., but the vote in
    the U.N. doesn't count in order to institute the parameters of
    the Constitutional role in the United States. It is a vote in
    the House and in the Senate. So what happened in Puerto Rico
    was that a number of people came here, sat in Congress and said
    nothing was going to change and then went to the U.N. and it
    was such an absurd proposition that they had to buy everybody
    off there. It was a buy and sell proposition.
        My thesis for master of law was regarding the decision of
    the U.N. It was 22/18 with 16 abstentions when the United
    States was the owner of the world. What happened there? Arms
    were twisted, you know, all sorts of objectionable procedures
    were taken there for the United States to force a 22 to 18 vote
    in the U.N. That is what happened there, and the United States
    is guilty and the Puerto Rican government at that time is
    guilty also. They are accomplices in this enormous hoax upon
    the world.
        After that happened, in 1960 came declaration of
    independence which legally superseded whatever happened in '52/
    '53. But besides those legal issues, the fact is the United
    States lied in 1952 in the U.N., in 1953, and the Puerto Rican
    government fooled the whole world and lied also in the U.N. And
    then they have been lying for 40-some odd years in Puerto Rico.
    They have been telling the Puerto Rican people that we have a
    compact here. If we had a compact, what are we doing here? What
    is the part of the compact that you people are supposed to
    keep? You know, if this is a compact, it is the worst compact I
    ever saw.
        You know, so we should--I don't want to--that is why I
    couldn't resist the temptation, you know, but that is what I
    said, let us put that aside. I am willing not to speak about
    that. I urged Congressman Young, you know, be lenient in this
    matter, don't rub it in in the findings of the bill, everybody
    knows what commonwealth is. Even they know what it is. But let
    us leave that outside. Let us describe the two paths. One
    towards sovereignty of Puerto Rico and one towards the
    sovereignty of the United States, but let us not try to fool
    anybody anymore. We are grown up in Puerto Rico. We are grown
    up here.
        The United States in Puerto Rico did things in 1952 because
    the U.S. Government was so stingy that they wouldn't grant the
    Puerto Rican autonomists even what they asked for, but instead
    of accepting that fact and coming to Puerto Rico and telling
    the people, ``this is what we got,'' they tried to make out of
    what they could get from the United States something new, a
    development of federalism. It is a real pity that we have
    wasted 40-some odd years with these big hoax in Puerto Rico.
    But let us not speak about the hoax. Let us speak about the
    future.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me end. I have to go vote. I thank you for
    your support of the non-resident vote and for clarifying that I
    left it open for negotiation, because I know what I want, but
    there are other people who may want to tailor that to the needs
    of the moment.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I wanted to say that. The fact that I
    favor the non-resident vote doesn't mean that I am going to let
    those people who want this to continue under colonialism to use
    that as an excuse not to participate in the process. That
    should be made very clear. I am not saying it as an excuse but
    as a matter of justice. We are past the stage of excuses. We
    have to face the issue. Either we want to be Americans or we
    want to be Puerto Ricans. That is the real issue.
        The Chairman. We have got to go vote. When we come back--
    thank you, sir. The Honorable Acevedo Vila, President of the
    Popular Democratic Party will be up.
        You know, you don't have to vote. You can go ahead if you
    want to. I will be right back.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The President of the Popular Party, Mr.
    Acevedo-Vila.

      STATEMENT OF ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, PRESIDENT OF THE POPULAR
                DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Good afternoon. For the record, my name
    is Anibal Acevedo-Vila. I am President of the Popular
    Democratic Party. I commend the sponsor of this bill for his
    interest in establishing the procedure for the people of Puerto
    Rico to choose their final political status. I pledge the full
    cooperation of our party to that end.
        We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze
    H.R. 856 and conclude that we cannot and will not support it as
    it stands right now.
        For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe
    in autonomy and self-government with American citizenship as a
    bond with the United States, this bill offers no alternative.
    It will require that the more than 900,000 persons I represent
    that are against annexation as a State, choose between the
    colonial denigrating status or loosing our American
    citizenship. To vote in this plebiscite would force us to act
    against our political beliefs. It would trample us upon our
    conscience.
        When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American
    citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, it was made
    completely disassociated from any thought of statehood and
    specifically contemplated that it be an element of future
    autonomous self-government development for the island. To
    unilaterally change these assumptions now would confront Puerto
    Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no precedent in American
    history.
        With this bill as it stands, statehood becomes the only
    available alternative. The people of Puerto Rico would have to
    make a choice for statehood for their own reasons, not based on
    patriotism and a real commitment to the union, but because they
    have been left with no other real alternative. On the other
    hand, the U.S. Congress will have before it a petition for
    statehood, and a request for action without having considered
    properly the cultural, national, linguistic, economic
    consequences of statehood. As you can see, this bill as it
    stands would not solve any problem, but rather create a bigger
    one.
        Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair
    and democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September
    17, 1990, with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto
    Rico, and I am quoting, ``a referendum should only be
    authorized by the Congress if it is to be fair to all parties
    and the statuses they advo-

    cate.'' With all due respect, the bill under your consideration
    does not comply with the fairness standard Chairman Young
    previously established.
        History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship
    are not mutually exclusive concepts. This principle was clearly
    outlined by President Taft in his 1912 State of the Union
    address advocating in favor of granting American citizenship to
    Puerto Ricans. And I quote from President Taft. ``But it must
    be remembered that the demand must be, and in the minds of most
    Puerto Ricans is, entirely disassociated from any thought of
    statehood. I believe that no substantial approved public
    opinion in the United States or in Puerto Rico contemplates
    statehood for the island as the ultimate form of relations
    between us. I believe that the aim to be striven for is the
    fullest possible allowance of legal and fiscal self-government
    with American citizenship as the bond between us; in other
    words, a relation analogous to the present relation between
    Great Britain and such self-governing colonies as Canada and
    Australia.''
        The basic principles regarding commonwealth that this bill
    pretends to deny, the existence of a bilateral relationship
    based on mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its
    components, have been recognized by the court, by the U.S.
    Government, by the United Nations, and in all the bills that
    the Congress has seriously considered with regard to the status
    of Puerto Rico in the last 25 years.
        For example, H.R. 11200-1st Session, 94th Congress,
    introduced in Congress in 1975 approved in a subcommittee,
    recognized that we--that the commonwealth was a compact between
    Puerto Rico and the United States. S. 712, approved by the
    Senate Energy Committee in August, 1989, recognizing the
    bilaterality of the relationship and the permanence of American
    citizenship. S. 244 was also considered by the Senate Energy
    Committee in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico's autonomy,
    bilateral compact, mutual consent, and the U.S. citizenship as
    a bond of permanent union. Final Committee vote was 10 to 10,
    although major concerns to the commonwealth definition were not
    reported. Finally, H.R. 4765 approved by Interior and Insular
    Affairs, by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House
    of Representative in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of
    Puerto Rico to vote for a new commonwealth.
        So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents
    that clearly show that the assumptions under which this bill
    has been drafted are wrong. Now it is time to talk about the
    future.
        The definition I am about to present is made recognizing
    the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to enter into a
    new relationship with the United States consistent with the
    principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union
    that gave birth to the present commonwealth status. With minor
    changes in order to adjust it to the implementation process
    required by H.R. 856, the Popular Democratic Party believes
    that it will be adequate to work with the definition of a new
    commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990, which was
    included in the report to H.R. 4765 of the 101st Congress and
    approved unanimously by the full House on October 10, 1990.
        Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young
    and Congressman Miller, were members of that Committee and
    voted in favor of that definition that I will now present. The
    new commonwealth shall be defined as follows.
        A, the new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be joined in a
    union with the United States that will be permanent and the
    relationship could only be altered by mutual consent. Under a
    compact, the commonwealth would be an autonomous body politic
    with its own character and culture, not incorporated into the
    United States and sovereign over matters covered by the
    Constitution of Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution
    of the United States.
        B, the United States citizenship of persons born in Puerto
    Rico would be guaranteed and secure as provided by the Fifth
    Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and equal to
    that of citizens born in the several States. The individual
    rights, privileges and immunities provided for by the
    Constitution of the United States would apply to residents of
    Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto Rico would be entitled to
    receive benefits under Federal social program equally with
    residents of the several States, contingent on equitable
    contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
        C, to enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-government
    over matters necessary to its economic, social and cultural
    development under its constitution, a special constitutional
    convention will submit proposals for the entry of Puerto Rico
    into international agreements and the exemption of Puerto Rico
    from specific Federal laws or provisions thereof. The President
    and the Congress, as appropriate, will consider whether such
    proposals will be consistent with the vital national interests
    of the United States in the transition plan provided for in
    Section 4 of this act. The commonwealth would assume any
    expenses related to increased responsibilities resulting from
    these proposals.
        And that is the end of the definition we are presenting.
    The definition describes the minimum content of our
    aspirations. By offering a definition which was the subject of
    serious study, was actively supported by Chairman Young and
    Congressman Miller among others, and met with the approval of
    this Committee and of the whole House a few years ago, we mean
    to show our desire to facilitate the work of this Committee and
    bring about a plebiscite in which commonwealth supporters may
    participate with a clear conscience.
        By using the mechanism of a constitutional convention to
    implement the mandate in favor of the new commonwealth, which
    is already included in Section 4(b)(1)(B) of H.R. 856, that
    recognized the calling of a special constitutional convention,
    to implement a vote in favor of the new commonwealth, we would
    adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by this
    bill.
        The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at
    the future. It is in the process of reorganizing its leadership
    and currently involved in a healthy generational transition
    that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years to
    come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with
    the principles contained in a document adopted last week by the
    Youth Organization of the Popular Democratic Party.
        Commonwealth as an autonomic idea for the future is the
    only status alternative in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those
    aspirations and goals of the modern world by protecting our
    identity and si-

    multaneously guaranteeing our relationship with the United
    States, with a common market, common citizenship, common
    defense and common currency.
        We believe that the modern tendencies show that the ideas
    that will prevail in the new century will be those similar to
    the basic principles of commonwealth of national reaffirmation
    and political integration among the people of the world.
        Thank you.
        [Statement of Anibal Acevedo-Vila may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Acevedo. I want to thank
    you for your testimony, statement and also thank you for
    staying within the time limits allowed. Now I would like to ask
    a couple of questions about your proposal. But before that, I
    would like to ask a question about the plebiscite, how the
    plebiscite is held in Puerto Rico. Do you believe that the
    plebiscite bill in 1967 was a fair bill for all parties?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It was a completely different process.
    That one was basically a local plebiscite. Now we are talking
    about federally authorized plebiscite and I think that if we
    want to really have action from Congress, this is the kind of
    plebiscite we need. We had two plebiscites, one called by the
    Popular Democratic Party in 1967, the other one by the
    Statehood Party in 1993. And we haven't seen any action from
    Congress. So I don't--perhaps that one should have been done in
    a different way to guarantee that the resolve of the people of
    Puerto Rico would have been respected by Congress. I think that
    is one of the major limitations we have had till now.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. My question is precisely whether you
    think that the 1967 plebiscite was a fair plebiscite to the
    other parties, the parties that represented statehood and
    independence? Would you say that that was a fair plebiscite as
    far as they were concerned? Having nothing to do with the
    Federal Government, just with the other parties.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Well, at that time the statehood party
    did not accept the plebiscite and a new faction was created.
    And as a result, perhaps, of what happened in '67, they won the
    elections in 1968. So the statehood was adequately represented
    in that plebiscite.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But we all considered it a very unfair
    plebiscite. We participated as an independent group. The party
    boycotted and so did the independence party boycott it. Both
    parties boycotted it, and they voted against the bill in the
    legislature of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I don't think that for some of that the
    1993 plebiscite was either too fair. We participated and we
    won.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And the 1991 referendum, do you
    consider that--was that a fair bill for the other side?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In a way it is also--you could say it was
    unfair, but you won.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That is right. So sometimes what is
    unpleasant, is not fair, might be to the advantage of the other
    party.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I think that what we get out of this is
    that the next time we should do it the right way.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The other--when I read your definition
    of a new commonwealth, and so much emphasis is made on the
    sovereignty and the separateness of Puerto Rico, vis a vis the
    United States, my mind wonders why do you really, then, insist
    on U.S. citizenship? You don't really want to be like other
    U.S. citizens. Why do you insist on that?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. As I showed you with the President Taft
    quote, when U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of
    Puerto Rico, it was clearly established it had nothing to do
    with statehood, and moreover that it could be the bond of a new
    relationship based on an autonomous self-government. And that
    is what we are asking. This bill--one of the problems with this
    bill is now, 60 years later, 70 years later, Congress wants to
    unilaterally give a new interpretation, but it is too late.
    U.S. citizenship was granted in 1917 under those rules, and to
    change that now is really unfair to the people of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I am not talking so much about the
    unfairness that might be or might not be in Congress. My
    question is why do you want to be a U.S. citizen if you don't
    really like being part of the United States as the rest of the
    citizens? What would you want to be?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Congressman, we haven't said that. I
    haven't said that. We have a special relationship, and to enter
    into a new relationship, yes, you have--the fact that we have
    here in our self-determination process, even if we vote for
    statehood, that is basically an exercise of our sovereignty.
    This Congress will decide if the people of Puerto Rico have the
    right to vote for their future. And whatever relationship we
    will have in the future with the United States has to be based
    on the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico, which means
    that the ultimate source of power is the people. So I don't see
    why you want to give some different computation to my
    expression when even for statehood this Congress has to decide
    that we have the power to decide. And to have the power to
    decide means to have--to be sovereign in terms of the decision
    we are going to make.
        After the decision is made and a new commonwealth is
    established, we have provided for a mechanism so the powers
    that Congress will still exercise over Puerto Rico will be
    clearly established through this process of a special
    constitutional convention, which is the only change we are
    making to the definition that in 1990 was approved by the full
    House, by this Committee and unanimously by the full House.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The issue here is not only what we
    want, but also what Congress would approve and what the
    citizens for which the Congress people and the Senators respond
    would accept. Now the reason I asked that question is how do
    you think the U.S. citizens here feel when they hear or they
    read that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico don't really want to
    have the same things that they have or have equality in a
    democratic system which prides itself on equality politically,
    equality economically, and that they don't really want that,
    they want something else and they want to be separated and they
    want their own authority for certain other things and they
    don't want to get into the ball game?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Precisely because we know that it a two-
    way relationship. We are offering an alternative that was
    approved by the full House in 1990. So we are not here with a
    new wish list or whatever. We are working on what was done
    between 1989 and 1991, and in this case what was approved on
    this Committee.
        With regard to Puerto Rico, the United States and the
    people of the United States know they have a special
    relationship with Puerto Rico. They know we have different
    culture and different language and they have advantage of that
    relationship. It is not only one way. It is two ways. Common
    defense is also in the interests of the United States, and we
    agree with that. Puerto Rico is one of the best markets for
    U.S. produce, and that is good for the American economy. So it
    is a relationship healthier for both sides. And what we want to
    do now is to get new tools for economic development for Puerto
    Rico within this special arrangement that has been working
    since 1952, but that now if we are going to address this issue
    seriously we should clarify any doubts about a relationship and
    give the opportunity for it to develop into further, more self-
    government, full self-government.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. My time is up. I just want to make a
    statement. The problem with the whole thing is the citizenship.
    If you ask for the same things without U.S. citizenship, I
    would think that the Congress wouldn't even, you know, think
    twice about it if that is what the people wanted. It is the
    citizenship that creates the real problem.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is not negotiable. Citizenship is
    not negotiable.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The Congressman from Samoa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acevedo-
    Vila, am I to understand that your statement on page 9 in the
    proposed definitions that you have alluded to earlier, this has
    been submitted to Chairman Young and the members of the
    Committee? This is what you would like----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--have incorporated in the
    proposed bill?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We were given until the 31st of March,
    but I decided that this was the moment to present, so this
    Committee clearly understands that we are not against a
    plebiscite.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So you are----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. All of the party have been committed
    since 1952, even after commonwealth was enacted, we have been
    committed to giving the opportunity of the people of Puerto
    Rico to be consulted again and also to develop commonwealth.
    But the problem with this bill is that it is unfair and
    basically if you approve this bill as it stands, you don't have
    to count the votes. You will have a petition for statehood
    here, but for the wrong reasons.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me ask you just--is it your position
    that you will not have any objections to this bill if the
    proposed definition of commonwealth as you alluded to earlier
    is incorporated?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. If this definition is adopted by this
    Committee, that means that we have changed the assumptions
    under which this Committee has been acting. You could have some
    choice or change of course then you have to make some other
    changes on the bill, for example the findings of fact, which
    even the independentistas said they are not necessary to be
    there. And of course these definitions should be part of the
    permanent solution of this issue. It is not something to--this
    one or the one that said that if commonwealth wins we have to
    have a vote every four years, it would be part of the permanent
    solution.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, as a matter of observation, Mr.
    Vila, it is interesting to note that you have stated that the
    people of Puerto Rico were not granted their American
    citizenship until 1917. The American Indians were not granted
    citizenship until 1924. My good friend here from Guam was not
    granted U.S. citizenship until 1950. To this day, we are still
    not U.S. citizens as part of the American family, as I say. So
    as a matter of observation I wanted to ask you it is your
    opinion that since granting citizenship in 1917 to the people
    of Puerto Rico, your feeling is that Congress never intended
    Puerto Rico to become a State?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is clearly on the record. That has
    been decided by the courts. And also on page----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No, I am not----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. No, I want to----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I want to make an addition, an
    observation of the fact that I recall that in 1929 there was a
    U.S. Supreme Court case that emanated from Puerto Rico, which
    was Downs v. Bidwell, which by judicial legislation the U.S.
    Supreme Court then created what was called the incorporation
    doctrine, meaning that if a territory was to be described as an
    unincorporated territory, they will never see the day of
    becoming a State, but if you were an incorporated territory----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In that case----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--like Alaska and Hawaii,
    there was some sense of future that one day those territories
    would eventually become States.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In that case it was after we had become
    U.S. citizens.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. And the court decided that we were not an
    incorporated territory because of the fact that we were given
    U.S. citizenship. It had nothing to do with statehood. And
    these men tried to change all that law.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Was there any reason when the U.S.
    finally decided to grant independence to the Philippines, was
    there any discussion in the Philippine--I mean in Puerto Rico,
    as well, as your understanding of history? Was there any
    movement by the people of Puerto Rico that a likely grant
    should also be given to the people of Puerto Rico when the
    Philippines became independent?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. All the evidence is that Puerto Ricans
    never, never have really been interested in independence. And
    after the creation of commonwealth back in 1952, the
    Independence Party was the second party in the island, and I
    don't remember the percentage, but they got perhaps maybe 30
    percent of the vote. Now they have been down to five percent
    for the last 20, 25 years.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Is it your basic position that--let us
    say that this legislation goes forward smoothly, that as
    proponents of a commonwealth status, whatever the will of the
    people of Puerto Rico will decide, in fairness, if it wants
    statehood tomorrow, the commonwealth proponents will accept
    statehood? Is that basically your position?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We don't have any problem with that, and
    we will respect the will of the people, and we also believe
    that if it is a fair process and commonwealth is defined in a
    way that recognizes the kind of relationship we want, we will
    win that plebiscite. The people of Puerto Rico want to be--to
    keep being Puerto Ricans and also they want to keep their close
    relationship with the United States. The only way you can
    amortize that in the reality of Puerto Rico is through
    commonwealth. Independence, then you will afford--your
    nationalistic ideas and principles will be guaranteed, but then
    you won't have the close ties to the United States. With
    statehood, you are risking, definitely, your cultural identity
    and language.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But your point is that whatever the will
    expressed by the people will be, whether it be independence,
    commonwealth or statehood, your proponents of commonwealth will
    accept that?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I go a step further. On the resolution
    that was approved by my party, which is included as an appendix
    to my written statement, we say that we want any plebiscite--a
    federally approved plebiscite should be self-executing.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Believing that, recognizing 1989 to 1991
    process, we were the ones requiring that any bill approved by
    Congress would be self-executing.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, who
    is next?
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a
    point.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Congressman Kennedy.
        Mr. Kennedy. It is interesting that I have to ask a
    question now, because I get to go over and vote on the Fair
    Labors and Standards Act because I am a--I have got all the
    rights and privileges as a Member of Congress here, and yet you
    can let me go because you can't have that same right that I
    enjoy on the Floor of the House to go leave now. And yet when
    we adopt one way or another whether we can replace comp time
    for overtime in this country, it is going to affect the
    residents of--people of Puerto Rico such that at the end of the
    year they are not going to have accrued as much social security
    time. At the end of the year, they are not going to have
    accrued the overtime dollars. They are going to be at a loss of
    nearly $1600 per family of income because of this bill if it is
    to pass, and yet your representative cannot go on the Floor and
    say that is wrong for Puerto Rico because he doesn't have that
    voting privilege.
        And from my point of view, if you want to have citizenship
    and you want to have a bilateral relationship, it seems to me
    it has to include your ability to have voting power or else to
    have full determination for your people is rendered moot
    because you don't have the governmental authority to advocate
    on some very basic issues of economic concern. And that is all
    I----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. As to your concerns, I have adequately
    taken care on the definition I am presenting. The solution to
    that dilemma is to allow the people of Puerto Rico an
    established mechanism so we can be exempted from Federal laws
    which has nothing to do with vital national interest. We don't
    have any problem with the laws regarding to defense and all
    that, but any other law we should would have the mechanism to
    decide whether it should apply to Puerto Rico or not. There is
    no problem with that, and that will take care of your concern.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The gentleman from Guam.
        Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for a
    very interesting presentation. I have always--obviously I have
    the bill that I have introduced to make Guam a commonwealth,
    and sometimes people ask what is the distinction between this
    bill and the current status of Puerto Rico, but that will come
    for another day. And that issue, I think we deal with a little
    bit differently, because as part of the legislation that I have
    for Guam includes a mechanism for ultimately making a case for
    full self-determination. So that is not a process that is
    oblivious to that, but is actually incorporated in the context
    of the legislation which we have developed from Guam.
        The question that I have for you is that in the process of
    making a case for commonwealth and assuming that this
    legislation moves forward and it has a definition that fits
    your--is to your satisfaction, and commonwealth prevails in
    this process, is it your assumption that commonwealth will then
    be a permanent status and that there will be no further
    determination, no further electoral process involved?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It will be a permanent solution, of
    course. If 25, 30, 35 years from now the people of Puerto Rico
    express the will to become a State or even independence, we
    might reconsider the whole thing, but it is like when Texas was
    independent, Alaska was a republic and it was not the end of
    the discussion, but on this--from our point of view, it is a
    permanent solution, especially until--for all the time that
    Puerto Rico wants to still be part of that kind of arrangement.
    That is the concept of mutual consent.
        Going back to the question of sovereignty, when Congress
    talks about mutual consent, it is recognizing the sovereignty
    of the other side to decide in terms of any change to the
    relationship. So that is taken care of also within the concept
    of mutual consent.
        Mr. Underwood. OK, so as I understand you, and as I
    understand the advocates of your position, then, obviously
    things can always change. It could be that what is now an
    independent republic could become admitted as a State in the
    Union. It is even conceivable that a State in the Union may no
    longer be a State in the Union, but I think we take it on
    relatively safe political assumption that once you are a State
    in the Union, that is pretty much it and that once you are an
    independent country, that that is pretty much the situation.
    But the relative permanence of what you have described for
    commonwealth is not quite as permanent as the other two
    options.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It is as permanent as we want it to be
    permanent.
        Mr. Underwood. It is as permanent until you change your
    mind.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. As we want it to be permanent. There is
    no problem with that.
        Mr. Underwood. OK, all right, well, I am glad you say that,
    because that clarifies for me----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I have to be--if you consider statehood
    for Puerto Rico, given the fact that we are a nation, you are
    going to have people telling you that the right of self-
    determination of the people of Puerto Rico haven't been
    extinguished under statehood.
        Mr. Underwood. I hear that. I hear that loud and clear,
    but, you know, that is not a determination for me to make. I
    think it is a determination that will be made by the Puerto
    Rican people according to an orderly process, and so that is
    what I am most interested in. But what I am trying to
    understand is the relative permanence of what is being
    characterized as a permanent solution. And I want to state for
    the record that certainly in the process of--you know, you
    admit here or you submit as part of your testimony a quote from
    Justice Frankfurter.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I was going to--yes.
        Mr. Underwood. Yes, who said that this is really
    unincorporated territory. It is a problem of statesmanship.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, that is a quote from 1912 when he
    was working at the War Department and Puerto Rico was under the
    jurisdiction with regard to Puerto Rican interests was in the
    War Department. And that quote, I think, is very, very
    important, because it basically tells you here in Congress that
    there are no real Constitutional constraints on establishing a
    new relationship with Puerto Rico.
        The quote is the following. ``The form of the relationship
    between the United States and unincorporated territory''--which
    we were at that time--``is solely a problem of statesmanship.
    History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a
    central government and dependent territory. The present day
    demands upon inventive statesmanship is to help evolve new
    kinds of relationships so as to combine the advantages of local
    self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily,
    our Constitution has left this field of invention open.''
        What you have is an opportunity of statesmanship invention.
    That is it.
        Mr. Underwood. Inventiveness is one thing. Invention is
    another, and permanent status yet is still another. And I would
    submit that there is--I understand the dynamics of where we are
    today and I have no doubt that saying that this dynamic may
    serve us well for the next 25 to 30 years, but there is in your
    characterization of this permanent status an indicator that
    there is still something unresolved in that. There is still
    something unresolved, and that is a final issue of self
    determination. And until that is fully resolved in one way or
    another, it seems to me that inevitably we will come back and
    indeed the current status may serve the purposes of the
    relationship well now. But indeed at 25 years from now, 30
    years from now, 50 years from now, we will be back addressing
    the same issues.
        That is why, you know, the way we have crafted it is a
    little bit different. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [Joint letter to the President may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. The
    gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
    afternoon, Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Commonwealth and free association
    are status options in this bill, and I would ask you to clarify
    for me what is the difference.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Well, I mean, this bill--commonwealth is
    defined--in this bill, the one we have--OK.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Well, have you seen the definition
    that is proposed for free association?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. The one in the bill, yes.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Go ahead and answer. Go ahead.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In this bill, in H.R. 856, commonwealth
    is defined as a colonial denigrating status and free
    association is defined as independence with no American
    citizenship. And that is one of the problems with this bill. It
    wants to force my people to vote to go back to a colonial
    status or to deprive the unborn Puerto Ricans, my
    grandchildren, of American citizenship. And that has no
    precedent in American history.
        Ms. Christian-Green. I can't find it right now, but I
    thought that--I think that in what is proposed for free
    association they propose to negotiate American citizenship. So
    what would be the difference--if that was proposed, what would
    be the difference between free association and commonwealth as
    you define it?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. The definition of new commonwealth is the
    one that I am proposing. How you label it, to me, is not
    important. It is the essence. And the essence is that we have
    and we want a bilateral relationship based on a mutual consent
    with the American citizenship as one of its elements. That is
    not negotiable.
        Ms. Christian-Green. I understand. Thank you.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Before we go to the next member, I
    would like to say something for the record. One of the things
    that you mentioned, that the definition of the commonwealth in
    the bill before that was granted by the House back in 1991,
    that was '91 or '92. I don't remember exactly.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It was 1990, October 10.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That bill did not include a definition
    of commonwealth. The definition of commonwealth was only in the
    Committee report, but it was not included in the bill.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I clearly say in my statement that it was
    included on the report, but I can explain to you the whole
    process----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, I was in the process. I was in
    the process.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Because the law--the bill, as you know--
    --
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. There was no consensus either in those
    days for those bills.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. But it was approved. You were here. It
    was approved unanimously----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. With no consensus of the parties in
    Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Excuse me?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. With no consensus of the parties in
    Puerto Rico as to what the bill said. The bill was approved the
    way the Congress wanted to approve it, not the way we wanted
    it.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. OK, but of that bill----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I think the way----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That bill clearly says that the people of
    Puerto Rico have the option of voting for statehood,
    independence or new commonwealth and that whoever wins under
    that bill would come here and negotiate it. They said on the
    principles of the definitions that were included on the
    report--that was stated on the bill.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That was not stated on the bill. We
    can--we have the bill in our records, so we will look at that.
    The other--I have copies of it, of the bill. We have copies of
    it. Are you aware----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Can I read Section 4 of that bill?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Let me ask you a question. Are you
    aware that Congress cannot deny another Congress its
    Constitutional authority? In other words, if a Congress says
    today I am not going to exercise this Constitutional authority,
    this Constitutional power that I have, it cannot tell the next
    Congress that it cannot exercise it. Are you aware of that
    Constitutional doctrine?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That Constitutional doctrine has
    exceptions. And on my testimony, written testimony, you can
    look into Appendix A where we have a note on the power of
    Congress to enter into a compact with the people of Puerto Rico
    and in many cases where this Congress has entered into the same
    kind of compact relationship and the court has validated that
    exercise. I have said that further Congress would have to
    comply with that.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. There is no single case that determines
    that Congress can address itself or its authority unless they
    do it by the Constitution, and to obligate a future Congress. A
    future Congress might abide by it throughout entirety, but the
    future Congress always had the right to do away and change the
    law. If you adopt something by law, if Congress adopts
    something by law, then the next Congress can repeal and can
    amend that law. There is no such thing as a law that is
    unrepealable or unamendable. So any law by Congress giving
    Puerto Rico certain powers can be taken away by the next
    Congress, because Congress cannot deny the next Congress that
    authority, that power that it has under the territorial clause.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We can discuss this for hours if you want
    to. It is basically a legal discussion. For me, this is
    basically a problem of Puerto Rico will. It is not a legal
    discussion. If this Congress wants to recognize and validate
    what it told the people of Puerto Rico back in 1952 and
    construe over it for the future--and at that time Law 600 was
    not a single law. Law 600 was approved by this Congress and
    then it said clearly that in order to enter into effect it had
    to be approved by the people of Puerto Rico. There is the
    compact that the Governor couldn't find.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. This is merely a rectification. The
    Congress says this is a law, if you want it, accept it. That is
    all it says, all the law says.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is not----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. If you accept it, we will go on.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is not what the cases say, but we
    don't want to----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the Chairman yield?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I think what we are trying to determine
    here, Mr. Vila, is the fact that there is definitely a
    permanency on statehood status as well as independent status.
    But when we discuss the issue of commonwealth, it seems to be
    an evolving process. It is not really permanent. Whatever was
    the status of commonwealth in 1917 or even in 1920, I think the
    latest now, as I understand from those who are advocating
    commonwealth, it is a continuous process in between
    independence on one extreme and statehood on the other extreme,
    so I think what we are trying to establish here is that there
    definitely is a permanency on statehood and independence, but
    commonwealth seems to be an evolving process. There is no
    finality of determining what exactly is the--what direction is
    Puerto Rico headed for. Am I correct?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. If it is good for the United States and
    if it is good for the people of Puerto Rico, why do we have to
    be then discussing this issue about the permanence? It is good
    for the people of Puerto Rico and it is good for the United
    States just continuing it. I don't--as I told you, even if
    Puerto Rico becomes a State, you will still have the self-
    determination issue, because given the fact that we are a
    nation, people will say that we haven't extinguished our self-
    determination right. So what you are asking me is that we by
    law say that it is legally important after this plebiscite we
    will say by law that it is illegal to be an independentista or
    statehooder, even--or if we become a State that it will be
    illegal to be an independentista or autonomous under statehood.
    No, the discussion might go on, but with this finished and if
    Congress finally clarifies many of the assumptions made on this
    bill, I can guarantee you that we will win that plebiscite and
    that this thing would be settled at least for one generation.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you view that with the current
    definitions of the proposed bill that there definitely would be
    some very serious problems with those advocating commonwealth
    if you were to proceed with the plebiscite, or will you
    participate in the plebiscite without the form of definition
    that you now have outlined in your statement?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I have to be honest with you. I can't
    make the U.S. Government, Congress and the President, approve a
    law which gives no option to 46, 48, 49 percent of the people
    down there in Puerto Rico who believe in self government with
    an autonomy with American citizenship. So I come here because
    we see the invitation, especially the letter that was sent by
    Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, as an openness, as an
    opportunity, as a willingness to revise the assumptions under
    that bill. So I really--I believe in principles. I believe in
    democracy, and I think that if a plebiscite is finally approved
    by Congress, we will be allowed to vote.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I am sorry.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, I
    guess we are coming back to probably the crux of the dilemma
    that we have here today, I believe. As I stated earlier, Mr.
    Chairman and members of the Committee, I have the perplexing
    dilemma also, and that is that I see what happened in '52, OK,
    we got Law 600. Subsequently, we go to the United Nations. We
    say to the committee on decolonization ``tell you what, Puerto
    Rico has achieved self-determination, we have a bilateral
    agreement.'' That is our government interpreting what the
    Congress of the United States has done. Now we can argue and
    quibble into the night, but that was the interpretation before
    the world. Now, see, I don't mind looking backward from that
    position.
        I say that if the people of Puerto Rico and the Government
    of the United States, through its representatives, went to the
    United Nations and said `` we don't have to report anymore to
    the committee on decolonization,'' why are we moving backward
    to a territorial clause which is weaker, which is weaker and
    less respectful of the people of Puerto Rico to then reengage
    in a conversation where we should say ``move forward.'' And so
    it is like we have let you come this far, we told the world we
    would let you come this far, but now we are taking it all back
    and starting back at square one going back to the territorial
    clause.
        It would seem to me that even if you believe that it was a
    lie, a fantasy, and something that we misled the people of the
    world about, that it still has validity in terms of its impact,
    where it has taken the people of Puerto Rico. And we shouldn't
    really take that away. So I have a great dilemma of saying to
    myself I understand the question of sovereignty and separate
    sovereignty.
        I understand those questions, but you see, in Puerto Rico
    if you look at the history, there have been three traditions.
    There has been the annexation tradition, those who wish for
    Puerto Rico to become a State. Very well established in
    history. There has been the independence tradition, very well
    established in the history of Puerto Rico. And there has been
    the autonomous position, very well established in the history
    of Puerto Rico. Ramon Baldorioty de Castro y Luis Munoz Rivera.
    And you can keep adding names. And, I mean, maybe Munoz Rivera,
    others probably didn't speak to Jose de Diego. And they were
    together at one time and then they separated over these
    questions.
        But, you see, it is--the problem that I have, and I am
    going to have to grapple with it seriously and that I think the
    members of the Committee should seriously look at, do you now
    say given that history in Puerto Rico that we are going to lump
    two of them together? Two historically independent
    interpretations of what the will of the people of Puerto Rico
    should be historically speaking. I didn't make them up
    yesterday. So to kind of suggest that somebody is coming up and
    inventing a new formula, I think is a little disingenuous given
    the rich history of the option of autonomy and the proposal of
    autonomy which exists in Puerto Rico.
        Now the question that I think this Committee should ask
    itself--if we can see--if we can concede that Puerto Rico under
    free association, which I think was from commonwealth--because
    let me just state for the record I do not believe that under
    the current status which exists between Puerto Rico and the
    United States we have achieved self-determination. I don't
    believe that, and therefore I believe it is a colony. But I
    also believe that because the Congress of the United States did
    not--our country, our government, did not fulfill its
    obligations as it should have back in 1953 to allow the growth
    of the sovereign powers of Commonwealth--allow the island to
    develop and to give birth to new kinds of rights under that
    interpretation.
        So I say to myself OK, now, let us think about this a
    minute. If I said there would be common currency, everybody on
    the Committee might say free association, common currency,
    sounds OK to me under free association. Common defense, sounds
    OK to me, probably could do that. If I could just--since the
    green light is still on----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I have been trying to say that, Luis,
    this is a time for questions.
        Mr. Gutierrez. I understand that.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And I have been very----
        Mr. Gutierrez. And I am working up to----
        The Chairman. I know why it took 98 years now. Go ahead.
        Mr. Gutierrez. And if we could have all of these other
    commonalities, I guess the question I have to ask myself very
    seriously, Mr. Resident Commissioner and Mr. Chairman, all of
    you, can there be common citizenship under that relationship
    between the two parties. And then if indeed we cannot do it
    under the interpretation of this Congress under the plenary
    powers under the territorial clause, can we allow the people of
    Puerto Rico under free association to have a convention in
    Puerto Rico, a constitutional convention in Puerto Rico, and
    come back and sign a treaty with the Senate thereby allowing
    this free determination and the freedom of the people of Puerto
    Rico--we can't have a treaty which is not removable
    unilaterally by one side. Maybe laws are changeable--and then
    resolve this issue.
        I don't know--those are questions that I have and I would
    like Mr. Acevedo to please respond to that inquiry.
        The Chairman. And may I suggest one thing, that you have a
    very short time to do it, because he took all the time in
    asking the question. Do the best you can, OK.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. As Frankfurter said back in 1914, our
    Constitution has left this field of invention open. And what we
    can't accept is the assumption on this bill that you can't have
    autonomy and full self-government based on bilateral
    relationship that can be changed only by mutual consent and
    also have American citizenship.
        So on the definition I am presenting, which I repeat was
    approved by the Committee and by the full--the definition was
    in the report and the report was approved here. And then the
    bill was approved in the House unanimously, and included this
    definition of the new commonwealth I am presenting with some
    minor changes. Recognizing all the principles we have been
    discussing, this doesn't have to be a trial on what happened in
    1950 and '52. We believe what happened in 1952, but if somebody
    has doubts, let us clarify them now. This is the time to
    clarify them.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acevedo, this is
    not a very easy moment for me, because, as I have stated
    before, I have taken some heat in the last couple of years for
    using the words colony and territory. And I know that some
    people feel offended by that, and some people feel somehow
    betrayed that anyone who was born on the island would
    charaterize the situation later in such a way. Please
    understand that my belief is that whatever agreement or lack of
    agreement was reached in '52, '53, was not a permanent
    agreement, because it was supposed to lead to something. Now
    what it would have led to is where I think we differ. Many of
    you feel somewhat comfortable with the current arrangement, but
    at the same time want changes in it.
        So my quick question to you, and I need you to give me a
    quick answer so I can give you another question, is: am I
    correct that, in the '93 plebiscite, the option presented as
    commonwealth was in fact a a different, enhanced, commonwealth,
    or was it a reaffirmation of everything that was in the
    agreement as you saw it and that the people voted 48 percent
    for?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila The definition I am presenting today
    verifies the principle in which we believe and that Congress
    told the people of Puerto Rico we were getting back in 1950,
    '52, but if you have some doubts inside yourself, then this is
    your opportunity to do it the right way, then. But within those
    principles, within those principles.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you the hard question. It might be
    easy for you. You do not believe--are you a lawyer?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. I am not.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Good for you.
        Mr. Serrano. My safety in this whole process, you know. You
    believe that Puerto Rico is not a colony of the United States?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, I do believe we are not a colony. I
    believe that in 1950 and '52 the people of Puerto Rico entered
    into this special arrangement with the United States. I don't
    say it is perfect, and we have always said that commonwealth
    needed further development. And that is the reason I am here
    today.
        Mr. Serrano. Do you believe that it is unfair for us to say
    in a bill, that commonwealth is based on what the Congress says
    it is, and that is what it is? It is whatever Congress says it
    is? And that commonwealth with your suggestions or the
    suggestions of people who believe in what you believe should be
    a separate option available to the people of Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. If nobody is going to vote for that
    definition, the first one, why do you have to put it on the
    ballot? Nobody wants the definition of commonwealth that is on
    this bill. So if we want to----
        Mr. Serrano. No, no, my question is: is it that nobody
    wants the definition of commonwealth or is it that the
    definition that Congress is presenting is shameful to a lot of
    people who supported it for so many years and they are running
    away from it now? Which one is it?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In my--from my point of view, that
    definition is not accurate.
        Mr. Serrano. OK, now let me tell you something.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. But I am not asking from this Congress
    now to make a judgment on the plebiscite from 1950, '52.
        Mr. Serrano. Right. The problem is, Mr. Acevedo, that that
    is what is holding us back. If there is a problem here, it is
    the fact that there is a segment of the leadership in Puerto
    Rico that is saying this is not what we are. Now let me tell
    you the strange and painful position that I find myself in. I
    was born in Mayaguez. My father was born in Anasco, my mother
    in Maricao. I came here to this country when I was seven years
    old. I am 53. I probably should not say that in public, but I
    am 53. When I think with my Puerto Rican hat, which is X amount
    of time during the day, I also don't want to believe Puerto
    Rice is a colony. It hurts me to admit that. But when I am a
    United States Congressman, which is a lot of the day, and I see
    how I treat Mississippi, New York, and Puerto Rico, I know that
    my cousins live in a colony.
        Now at what point do we say--maybe ``colony'' is not the
    word to use. Maybe the concept is a totally unfair relationship
    and we don't want it as an option. And let me ask you the last
    question. Do you think it would be proper for me as an American
    Congressman, forget the Puerto Rican part, to offer to people
    on the island an option that I believe to be unjust and unfair?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Well, I repeat again, I am not asking you
    to offer the commonwealth as defined on the bill as it stands
    right now. I am asking you to offer commonwealth as I have
    defined on my presentation and which you voted back in 1990 in
    favor of it. You voted. You were speaker pro tempore of that
    session.
        Mr. Serrano. In a great moment.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. So what we are asking is something that
    already has been approved by Congress, by the House.
        Mr. Serrano. So, one last question. If an amendment was to
    come to this Committee proposing what you propose in this bill,
    and this Committee turned it down because it wasn't willing to
    give Puerto Rico that arrangement, would you then propose that
    your party participate in the plebiscite or not participate?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We will fight in other forums, including
    the Senate, the White House, everywhere else. As I said before,
    perhaps the same question was made in a different way, I
    believe that the U.S. Government, Congress and the President,
    would leave 48 percent of the people in Puerto Rico without
    option and that power.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, but let us clarify that. I believe that
    that really is an unfair statement to me as a Member of
    Congress. The notion that the 48 percent voted for--and I know
    that Puerto Ricans are beautiful for analyzing numbers when it
    comes to this issue. The 48 percent voted for an option that
    this Congress feels you haven't reached yet. And so when you
    say Congress is leaving out 48 percent, yes, Congress may be
    leaving out the wishes of 48 percent, but not the actual living
    conditions and political arrangements of 48 percent.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is why I am talking now about the
    future here. And we said--we are talking about a new
    commonwealth consistent with the principle we have believed.
    And that new commonwealth was on the bill in October 1990.
        Mr. Serrano. All right, let me close by saying this. I
    don't have a problem with a new commonwealth. I have a problem
    with a new commonwealth being presented in the ballot as the
    old commonwealth, because the old commonwealth is not the new
    commonwealth.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I invite you to read carefully the
    definition I am proposing today. And as I said, that was
    approved back in 1990.
        Mr. Serrano. All right. Then again, Mr. Chairman, one last
    point, any time a system of relationships allows me to run for
    Congress but doesn't allow my American citizen cousins in
    Mayaguez to run for Congress, that is not a fair relationship.
    I shouldn't see that on the ballot. Any time a system allows me
    to institute agreements with foreign countries but doesn't
    allow you the sovereignty to institute agreements with foreign
    countries, meaning you are not a State, and you are also not
    independent, then I can't see that as a fair relationship.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. The solution to your concern is on
    paragraph C of the definition.
        Mr. Serrano. Which is not the actual status, is what I am
    trying to get at.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. What you----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am going to----
        Mr. Serrano.--doesn't exist right now.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am going to repeat my statement. So far
    I have been talking about the historic precedent that clearly
    showed that the assumptions under which this bill has been
    drafted are wrong. Now is the time to talk about the future.
        Mr. Serrano. OK.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. And I am proposing a new commonwealth
    which is the definition that was approved by this Committee and
    the House back in 1990.
        Mr. Serrano. I respect that, and I won't badger you
    anymore. I do respect you. I respect what you stand for. I
    respect what your party stands for. I think the tragedy here is
    that Congress may be ready to stop lying and some people can't
    accept that Congress will finally stop lying. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. One last question before we finish. If
    the Congress were to, both the House and the Senate, and the
    White House were to take a look at this suggestion that you
    have for the new commonwealth and accept everything but
    including the citizenship and the bill were adopted, passed as
    a law into law as to the new commonwealth as you define it, but
    without the U.S. citizenship, what would your party do?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It would be unacceptable for us, you
    know.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So what would your party do? Would you
    vote, wouldn't vote?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We would have to decide at the time, but
    that definition wouldn't be acceptable for us.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So you wouldn't participate?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That would be another way to tilt the
    process in favor of statehood.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So you would not vote?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. You know that statehooders and
    commonwealth in Puerto Rico, we are proud of our U.S.
    citizenship, so by defining commonwealth without a U.S.
    citizenship, basically you are preordaining the result. And I
    know this Congress doesn't want that.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I have my doubts about that pride in
    the U.S. citizenship of some of the commonwealth leaders
    because of the way they talk about----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am talking on behalf of the PDP and the
    President of the PDP.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And when you--my question is if that
    were eliminated from your definition, would you participate in
    the process or not?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I don't see where we can vote under those
    circumstances.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. All right, thank you very much. For the
    New Progressive Party, Governor Luis Ferre, former governor.
    Luis, welcome to the Congress, the Committee. A couple of the
    members of the Committee have indicated to me that they have to
    go to vote, so they are trying to get back as soon as possible,
    including Chairman Young. The problem is that the bill that is
    now being taken care of in the House has certain votes that are
    pass votes one right after the other. They don't even have time
    for debate in between. That is why they have to stay there till
    those votes are taken.
        If you would like to wait for them, we can accommodate and
    we can wait for them. Would you like to start now? Whatever you
    wish.
        Mr. Ferre. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I know that
    they are voting now, but do you think I should start now? Your
    suggestion is that we should wait?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, if you want to wait for them to
    come--a couple of them to come back or we can start and then
    they will be coming.
        Mr. Ferre. Is Mr. Farrow going to make a statement?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, go ahead, sure.
        Mr. Ferre. Mr. Farrow.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Oh, Mr. Farrow. I am sorry. Mr. Farrow
    is here also. I think we better proceed. I think we better
    proceed then.

       STATEMENT OF LUIS FERRE, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW PROGRESSIVE
                      PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Ferre. Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural
    Resources Committee, good afternoon. It is a pretty light day
    this afternoon, but also it's early to do things that is right.
        My name is Luis A. Ferre. I have advocated statehood for
    Puerto Rico during my adult life, which extends to more than 93
    years.
        I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to '73, and I
    appear before you as Founding President of the New Progressive
    Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which
    won in 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331 or 51.4
    percent for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate
    with 19 seats out of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of
    54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78 municipalities and a vote
    of 973,654, or majority for our Resident Commissioner who is
    presiding today at this meeting.
        I am--the New Progressive Party, of course, stands firmly
    behind the Young bill, H.R. 856. And of course today when I sit
    here before you and I see Congressman Serrano, who presided
    this House three years ago when we voted in favor of another
    bill for statehood, when I see all these Members of--the Puerto
    Rican Members of the Congress of the United States here today,
    I say I am very happy that I have stood for statehood all the
    time, because all of them who have testified here say that they
    are proud to be Puerto Ricans, but they also are very proud and
    happy to have U.S. citizenship.
        And that is the feeling that we have respect today. We have
    2 million Puerto Ricans in the United States who are U.S.
    citizens and we have 3,600,000 in Puerto Rico. The 2 million in
    the United States are all enfranchised. They can vote for the
    President and for the Members of Congress. The 3 million in
    Puerto Rico are not enfranchised, the 3,600,000.
        And those are the ones that want this thing to be defined
    finally. We cannot wait any longer. The ones who live up here
    can wait, but we cannot wait. And that is why it is very
    important to have the Young bill finally approved. A decision
    must be made, and we cannot permit that this bill be delayed
    unnecessarily.
        We are all happy in this, that you have subscribed H.R.
    856, which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a
    decision on its ultimate political status in the dignified
    manner that becomes the United States Congress and the people
    of the United States, including statehood as an alternative,
    which was the implicit understanding under which the people of
    Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of General Nelson
    Miles in 1898.
        Unless we--I would like to note the American forces did not
    invade Puerto Rico. They landed in Puerto Rico, because there
    was no Puerto Rican fighting the American forces in Puerto
    Rico. In Cuba it was a different story. In Cuba they had to
    fight with the Spaniards, a big fight. In Puerto Rico, the
    Puerto Ricans immediately welcomed them and there was no
    fighting in Puerto Rico because the Spanish had to admit that--
    surrender and leave.
        And then the Puerto Ricans said we want to keep--to be part
    of the United States. We want to be U.S. citizens, because we
    want in the long run to be a State of the Union. In Cuba, they
    said no, we want independence. Well, Cuba got its independence.
    We got our U.S. citizenship. A hundred years later, here we
    are. Cuba is a Latin American country. Puerto Rico is part of
    the United States. That is the big difference. And you can see
    how different it is. That is why the people of Puerto Rico want
    to maintain their U.S. citizenship and consolidate that
    citizenship with the Nation on an equal basis and with equal
    dignity.
        I will not go into the historic elements, details of the
    landing of General Miles. It has been covered already here, but
    I would like to say the following thing. In 1950 Congress
    authorized the people of Puerto Rico to vote in referendum to
    accept or reject Law 600, which provided for the adoption of
    the local constitution, as well as to other amendments to the
    Jones Act of 1917. The Federal Relations Act remained
    unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico as a non-incorporated
    territory under the Territorial Clause of the United States
    Constitution and the full sovereignty of Congress.
        I want to state that because it has been discussed here
    today and I want to maintain that there was no amendment to the
    territorial clause. And I am talking now from experience. I was
    a member of that constitutional assembly. And at that
    constitutional assembly, which considered Law 600, we looked
    into the matter of the way Law 600 was approved by Congress.
    And in all the years in this Congress where the law was
    discussed, it was always clearly stated that Puerto Rico was
    not being removed from the territorial clause of the United
    States.
        And the Former Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Munoz Marin,
    said many times at these Committee hearings if Puerto Rico goes
    crazy and does something that is not quite in accordance with
    what we have agreed, you can--Congress can immediately repeal
    every thought of power it has given Puerto Rico. And that is
    why there was nothing passed.
        In order to get the law approved in Congress, the lawyers
    of the Department of Interior had to work out a solution that
    was acceptable to Congress. Congress would not accept the
    compact, but they did accept something in the nature of a
    compact. And in the nature of a compact is not a compact. It is
    something similar to a compact, but not--doesn't have the
    binding quality of a compact. And that is why after that
    Governor Munoz Marin and the Popular Party, and I have been
    fighting them since 1940, because do you know why I say so
    trying to make people of Puerto Rico believe that there has
    been a compact, that things have changed, that we were a
    different thing. But that was not true.
        Now finally Congress has said let us go, let us look into
    this matter now. There was no compact. You are still under the
    clause of territory because that was the way the Congress
    approved Law 600. So therefore, it is today necessary to decide
    the question of Puerto Rico by this Congress.
        In 1949, and many of you were not born then, I testified
    before a Committee of Congress, a subcommittee in Congress, on
    the subject of statehood for Puerto Rico. And at that time I
    said we are behind in our economic development because we are
    not a State of the Union. You have to give us our full--all the
    instruments that the States have to be able to bring Puerto
    Rico up to the same level as the rest of the nation. We don't
    want gifts, but we want the tools so that we can do it.
        And at that time, I pointed out that a State of the Union,
    Mississippi, in 1940 had a personal income of $268 and Puerto
    Rico had $122, 45.5 percent. In '49, Puerto Rico had $250 and
    Mississippi $555, 45 percent, the same ratio. Since then, the
    United States has worked with the Former Governor of Puerto
    Rico in bringing new ideas of how to solve the problem of
    Puerto Rico, but they haven't worked. The only idea that would
    work is statehood.
        If we would have two senators and six or seven Members of
    Congress, we would be able to work in Congress the solutions to
    our problem and we would have an economic position today where
    we would be similar to your States, but too much has happened
    since 1949. In 1956, Puerto Rico had $468 per capita and
    Mississippi $964, 48.5 percent. In 1996, now, this last year,
    Puerto Rico had $7882 and Mississippi $16,966, 45.8 percent of
    Mississippi. That is why we need so much help from Congress,
    because we have not been able to pull up our economy to the
    level of Mississippi at least, and not even to the average of
    the United States.
        So why? Because we are not a State of the Union. So all
    this discussion is really impractical. We have to solve the
    problem with the only way it can be done, which is by becoming
    a State of the Union.
        Now the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union
    would directly enhance the position of the United States in
    foreign affairs. It would be the logical conclusion of a
    process which started in 1898 when Puerto Rico came under the
    American flag. Puerto Rico before the year 1900 had the old
    European authoritarian social structure. This structure has
    gradually evolved into a democratic society under the American
    influence, which began by teaching our youth the American
    principles of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and
    respect for human dignity, through the school system and the
    political institutions, which were established after the year
    1900.
        That is the way Puerto Rico has grown. That is why I can
    see today Mr. Gutierrez sitting here, Congressman of his
    people, Mr. Serrano sitting here in the Congress of the United
    States. Mr. Serrano, who as I said, chaired the U.S. House
    three years ago for awhile brought forth the bill on Puerto
    Rico. And that is why I think it is important to understand
    that change in Puerto Rico. We are not a Latin American country
    anymore. Cuba is, because we changed, we took a different
    route. We became part of the United States. And we have wanted
    to be--we want to work up to the same level of dignity and
    equal rights as the rest of the country.
        This, therefore, has been, to my mind, the most significant
    change that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag.
    The successful achievement of our economic well being is,
    therefore, a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico
    and to our fellow citizens of the mainland, a challenge to show
    the world that the American way is the way to both economic
    success, social improvement and political freedom, which can
    usefully serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of
    other underprivileged countries of the world. A challenge of
    great political and human potentialities, which may be of great
    world significance.
        With respect to the relations of the United States and
    Latin America, statehood for Puerto Rico would have still
    greater significance. It would serve to improve and solidify
    the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would
    be the best proof that our good-neighbor policy is not a mere
    diplomatic posture, but that it is an honest and sincere
    expression of respect of North America for Latin America. It
    would make Latin America feel that through Puerto Rico and
    through its representation in Congress, their problems and
    aspirations would be better understood because of our common
    cultural origin and tradition.
        As Americans identified with the political and social
    philosophy of America and its institutions of law, we would be
    able to better interpret our foreign policy to them and help
    the United States to succeed in bringing better understanding
    and cooperation in the common problems of our hemisphere.
        And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further
    develop the commercial interchange with Latin America, which is
    our natural market, when we are loosing the European market to
    United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan and China, is
    essential to our success and prosperity.
        The growth of statehood forces in Puerto Rico have been
    overwhelming since 1968. In 1964, the Pro-commonwealth Party
    had 487,000 votes or 59.4 percent of the vote, and the Pro-
    statehood Party had 284,000 or 34.6. In the last election of
    1996, there was a complete reversal. The Statehood Party
    obtained 963,000 votes or 51.3 percent, and the Pro-
    commonwealth Party 855,000 or 45.5 percent, which shows that
    statehood is the growing movement in Puerto Rico.
        And remember that the Commonwealth Party also wants to keep
    U.S. citizenship. They are not thinking of giving it up. They
    want to hold onto it, so really when you come to think about
    it, 90 percent of the people of Puerto Rico want to continue to
    be U.S. citizens.
        Now can they be U.S. citizens without statehood? That is
    the issue. That is the issue. And all this playing around isn't
    going to solve the problem, because United States is determined
    and understand that constitutionally the only way you can be a
    U.S. citizen is by being born in a State of the union. And
    therefore, that is the only solution that we can find.
        We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a
    State after almost 100 years of successful democratic
    apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and
    responsibilities. During all this century, more than 200,000
    Puerto Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that
    United States has been involved with more than 6000 casualties
    and in several cases with higher casualties than some States.
    More than 2000 Puerto Rican soldiers served in the Gulf War,
    amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the First Armored
    Division. Four, such as Fernando Luis Garcia, who gave their
    lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have been decorated
    with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
        Other distinguished leaders who have also served the Nation
    are Admiral Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO
    Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to Spain; Vice
    Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the
    Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Pedro del Valle commanded
    the U.S. Marine Corps, First Division, in the Pacific; General
    William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy in Command of the National
    Guard; Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General, and
    Dr. Enrique Mendez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S.
    Army, amongst many.
        The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much
    we share common values with fellow citizens of the 50 States
    and how much Puerto Ricans believe in, honor, and defend the
    Constitution of the United States. A look at the myriad ways
    Puerto Ricans have served the United States over the last 99
    years is enough to pass the test.
        President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez,
    another Puerto Rican, to his Cabinet as head of Small Business
    Administration.
        Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with
    distinction, in Mainstream America to enrich its economy and
    its culture. There are about 2 million Puerto Ricans, as I said
    already, living throughout the nation, doing constructive and
    creative work as factory workers and professionals, in all
    fields of activity, thousands of physicians and engineers,
    thousands of teachers and professors in schools and
    universities.
        In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have
    contributed to enrich American music. Justino Diaz and Pablo
    Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera. Our
    great actors, like Jose Ferre and Raul Julia, have been
    American favorites.
        We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony
    through museum collections. Today you can see on loan by the
    Fountain Museum at the National Gallery here in Washington the
    painting ``Flaming June'' by Lord Leighton, which is the key
    painting and masterpiece of the Victorian Exhibition.
        We are also contributing to the richness of America in the
    area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge Juan
    Torruella, Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals.
    Judge Jose Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Circuit of
    Appeals. And we have here all these members of this Congress,
    who are our pride to have them here.
        In the area of sports, we have contributed with many
    baseball players, among whom Roberto Clemente has been included
    in the hall of fame. Charles Pasarell in 1969 was the first
    number one tennis player in the U.S., and now Gigi Fernandez is
    a tennis champion. Chi Chi Rodriquez is a golf professional
        And last, but not least, and I repeat this in the last
    meeting of the past Congress, but not least, to show how much
    Puerto Rico is embedded in the American life, it was the Puerto
    Rican judge of the Southern District of New York, Sonia
    Sotomayor, who was a fearless jurist a couple of years ago,
    decided to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in
    the baseball strike, and by doing so, sent the baseball players
    back to Americans, after more than a year, the enjoyment of one
    of their favorite sports. Nobody could be part of America more
    than this competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true
    image of the freedom and respect of law America stands for.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has come for Congress
    to live up to the commitment of equality under which we were
    brought into its fold. It is time to do justice to more than
    3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico.
    We congratulate you for taking the proper step with H.R. 856 to
    comply with your moral duty, as it becomes the United States
    Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States.
        Thank you very much.
        [Statement of Luis Ferre may be found at end of hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. And you are always an
    inspiration for me. As you get more mature, I see there is hope
    for me yet. And I want to thank you for your testimony. At this
    time, I understand, with the agreement of the other members--
    Mr. Kennedy, do you have to go somewhere?
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Yes, I have a caucus I have to go
    to.
        The Chairman. Well, being that you are one of the members,
    so is my good friend from American Samoa----
        Mr. Kennedy. Right.
        The Chairman. Would you let him have your time ahead of
    time?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. At
    the conclusion of the last witness, Mr. Acevedo, I was asking
    the question about whether--it was interesting that I got to go
    to the Floor of the House and vote on a very important bill on
    the fair labor--that affects the Fair Labor and Relations Act.
    And I made the point that it affects the people of Puerto Rico,
    and yet they can't have a representative on the Floor, like our
    good friend Carlos Romero-Barcelo go to the Floor and vote on
    that.
        And his answer to me as I was walking out was well, we
    wouldn't have to adhere to the Federal laws. And yet that begs
    the question well, what kind of citizen would you be. And I
    don't know if we could in good conscience allow our fellow
    citizens not to have to live with the same laws that we live
    with. And, you know, I think this--the definition of
    citizenship is the guarantee of the same rights and
    responsibilities of every other citizen. And so that is where I
    think his argument fell down.
        I wanted to state that for the record, because I was on my
    way out to vote when he made that rebuttal. And I think it is
    important, given the very proud record of citizenship and
    contribution to this country that Governor Ferre has just
    enunciated in his wonderful statement to this Committee about
    how proud Puerto Ricans have been in serving this country and
    being good American citizens. The notion that they would want
    to take anything less than all the responsibilities of that
    citizenship would contradict everything that Governor Ferre has
    talked about.
        The Chairman. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Ferre. I think I answered to some extent your question,
    because when you mentioned that we were not going to suffer
    because we had no way to prevent that bill from being passed,
    it is exactly what I have been saying. We don't have that power
    that can stop the things that harm Puerto Rico and that can
    give Puerto Rico the help that we need to solve our economic
    problems.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. And I
    do want to thank Governor Ferre for an excellent presentation
    and certainly to remind the members of the Committee and
    certainly the Members of the Congress the tremendous
    contributions that our good fellow Americans from Puerto Rico
    have contributed greatly to this Nation. So I thank the
    Governor for his statement.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Governor, for your
    presentation. I have no questions.
        The Chairman. Now, may I remind the gentleman he has the
    time to ask questions.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    You have been very good with me today. I thank you so much. I
    wish to welcome to Congress Mr. Luis Ferre. I wish to convey to
    you and to my colleagues a sense of respect and admiration that
    I feel for you. Mr. Luis Ferre, you are one of Puerto Rico's
    most respected and important statesmen of the 20th Century, and
    I can only wish and hope that at the end of my public service
    career I have achieved but a small fraction of your record and
    your stature. And I feel that it is a great honor to be able to
    share this room with you here today.
        I noticed as I read your testimony that you talked about
    Munoz Rivera.
        Mr. Ferre. Yes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. That Munoz Rivera, back in 1900 said we
    should include it in the platform and that statehood, who
    subsequently became renowned as a great autonomista in the
    history of Puerto Rico, and in 1900 said that statehood was
    indeed a dignified alternative and accepted that. But I raise
    that in the sense that today, as autonomistas and estadistas
    have to work to resolve the issues, maybe you can share with me
    and expand a little bit more on that?
        Mr. Ferre. May I clarify? You know, autonomista in Spanish
    times was not what we think today, commonwealth. Autonomista
    meant that they were trying to be a province on equal basis
    with the rest of the provinces of Spain. And we fought in the
    sense in the context of Spain. And that was a thing that was
    strong, which is exactly what we are asking. The alternative
    under statehood you are asking for, but those leaders of 1898,
    none of them wanted to be a colony, neither of Spain nor of the
    United States. They said we are willing to welcome the United
    States, and they did welcome them with flowers. There was not a
    shot fired by a single Puerto Rican, and I am talking from
    experience of my parents who welcomed all the American forces
    in a very friendly manner. And that is why Puerto Rico welcomed
    and gave landing of the American forces. Nothing ventured.
        Mr. Gutierrez. And I guess my point is that as we reach
    1997 and go into the 21st Century, and because things tend to
    change and evolve, the independence of the Nationalist Party is
    not the independence that is being articulated today before the
    Congress of the United States or that I articulate, for
    example, before the Congress of the United States.
        We heard earlier from the Governor of Puerto Rico,
    Rossello, that he talked about the United Nations and following
    the laws of the United Nations and making sure that this is a
    decolonizing process and that estado libre asociado is not a
    decolonizing process, alternative. Something that I agree with,
    but I don't think that you can't have a road that is similar to
    it that you cannot develop. I guess that is where we digress.
    But at the same time, then, statehood, if we were to follow
    international law, then the people of Puerto Rico would have
    the inalienable right to independence, something that we
    discussed earlier at the--when I testified, I think, in '93--
    hearing.
        I just simply said to Chairman Young, and I think Don
    Carlos remembers when I suggested that if Puerto Rico became a
    State, that it never would give up that inalienable right to
    its independence. So I would like to just ask you one other
    question. You as the founder of the New Progressive Party and a
    distinguished statesman independent of your position on
    statehood, as a distin-

    guished statesman, in 1966 you participated, it says here, in a
    status commission report. In that status commission report, Don
    Luis, that you were a signatory.
        Mr. Ferre. Yes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. How did it describe el estado libre asociado
    or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and did it describe it as
    it has been described today?
        Mr. Ferre. Well, if you read my testimony before this
    Committee on the Young bill, that was 724, you will see what I
    said. At that time what was understood was something that was
    supposed to have the compact, but the compact was not true.
    That is where the people were misled. There has been no compact
    with Congress. It was simply just giving us some initial local
    freedom to elect our governor and so on, but not to remove us
    from the clause of the--territorial clause of the Constitution.
    The Federal Relations Act was not amended. And by the way, the
    best--the man who was the great consultant of the Minot, who
    then became the President of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
    In his book, which was mentioned here this afternoon by
    Congressman Barcelo, Romero-Barcelo, said that he was convinced
    that Puerto Rico was still a colony in 1990. And that is his
    opinion--now he was the----
        Mr. Gutierrez. In fact, we just asked him, but that status
    commission report, did it describe el Estado Libre Asociado as
    a dignified option?
        Mr. Ferre. It is a question of statesmanship.
        Mr. Gutierrez. OK.
        Mr. Ferre. In this illustration were two very important
    words.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Governor. And again, thank you for
    taking the time and presenting the views and the history behind
    it. We deeply appreciate your participation.
        Mr. Ferre. Thank you.
        The Chairman. You are excused. The next person will be Jeff
    Farrow, Co-Chairman, Administration Interagency Working Group
    on Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C. Jeff, I have great sympathy,
    but also this is what you get paid for. You waited all day
    long.
        Mr. Farrow. Mr. Chairman, this is why I took this job.
        The Chairman. Besides that, they have got great golf
    courses in Puerto Rico, don't they? Go ahead.
        Mr. Farrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    members.
        The Chairman. We have the last witness of the day. It has
    been a long hearing. If we can have Luis and Patrick take it
    outside. Thank you. Go ahead, Jeff.

       STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. FARROW, CO-CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT'S
      ADMINISTRATION WORKING GROUP ON PUERTO RICO, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Farrow. Thank you for inviting the Clinton
    Administration to testify on authorizing the people of Puerto
    Rico to express their preference regarding their islands'
    relationship to the United States before the end of 1998 and
    the bill that you and other Members sponsored to provide a
    process leading to full self-government for the Commonwealth,
    H.R. 856.
        Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest
    and initiative of yourself and the other primary sponsors of
    the bill in Puerto Rico's political status dilemma. It is a
    matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political
    rights of millions of U.S. citizens and a major factor in
    determining the approach to many of the serious social and
    economic challenges faced in the islands.
        It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive,
    involving much of the range of Federal policy, central
    questions of identity, a century of history, the interests of
    political parties that are based on conflicting visions of what
    the best status for the islands would be and differences so
    intense that they hinder action on the issue itself and other
    issues as well.
        President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of
    Puerto Rico's decision of what status their island should have.
    He has pledged to back statehood or independence if Puerto
    Ricans vote for either one and to do his best to make the
    Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want to
    continue it.
        He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate
    is likely to persist until the Federal Government clarifies
    what the options really are and how they can be implemented.
    The differing status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long
    discussed largely hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that
    have not been made.
        The President has therefore favored Puerto Ricans making a
    choice in concert with Congressional action in a process that
    is developed together with the people's representatives.
        Establishing a process that would enable this matter to
    finally be resolved is his highest priority regarding Puerto
    Rico, and he is fully committed to working with you and others
    in the Congress, with Puerto Rico's leaders, and others to
    establish it as soon as possible.
        The President believes that the Federal Government should
    number one, provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that
    are serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed
    aspirations and, number two, commit to act on implementing an
    option that is authorized by a majority vote in Puerto Rico. He
    very much hopes that such a process will be underway next year,
    the centennial of the United States acquisition of Puerto Rico.
    He looks forward to our entering the new millennium having
    concluded the debate and implementing the will of the Puerto
    Rican people.
        To facilitate the enactment of the law that is needed, the
    Administration offers the following comments on H.R. 856.
        Democratic principles require that the expressed
    aspirations of Puerto Ricans be central to the development of
    the options (which also must be viable from the Federal
    perspective). The President regards this as an integral part of
    the sound process.
        We, therefore, view Chairman Young's agreement with Senior
    Democrat Miller to give Puerto Rico's major political parties
    until March 31 to submit alternatives to the options in the
    bill and to seriously consider their proposals as a very
    constructive step. We appreciate the role that Governor
    Rossello and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo also played
    in it being taken.
        Consequently, the Administration would like to work with
    the Committee in fashioning the options, considering the
    proposals of the parties and others, as well as considering
    United States necessities, after the parties have had this
    opportunity to advance their ideas to you.
        The bill would ostensibly require a referendum before 1999
    and further referendum at least every four years thereafter in
    the event of no option of obtaining a majority, a majority for
    the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal
    status implementation legislation. Rather than suggest a
    mandate for votes, it would be more appropriate to simply
    provide a process for and facilitate the status choice.
        We also suggest giving the government of Puerto Rico
    flexibility on calling votes. Further votes might not be
    desired by Puerto Ricans so often, and in such a case the call
    for revoting at least every four years would be a burden.
    Additionally, if Puerto Ricans were to reject statehood or
    nationhood implementation legislation, it probably would not
    make sense for them to vote again absent further Federal
    action.
        The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least
    ten years in the event of a majority for either nationhood or
    statehood.
        Since the measures that would need to be taken have not
    been specified and would change as time goes on, we recommend
    that the length of the transition be set in the transition
    plan. Congress would still have its say over the duration,
    since the plan would require Congressional approval.
        A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require
    that a law be enacted at the end of the transition to
    nationhood or statehood, in addition to beforehand, in order to
    actually implement a status change.
        The Administration favors prompt, final action on
    implementing a status change if chosen by a majority of Puerto
    Ricans. The purpose of a transition should be to permit
    significantly different policies to be implemented on an
    orderly basis. A further decision and possibly further
    requirements at the end of the transition could make the period
    only a partial transition, or even overturn the original status
    choice. That could be very problematic. The Federal Government
    and Puerto Ricans should have greater assurance of actually
    implementing a status before heading down the path toward it.
        The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of
    English that should be mentioned. One would establish a policy
    of English being the ``common language of mutual
    understanding'' in the United States.
        Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness.
    We are also concerned that it could be used to question
    statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most
    of Puerto Rico's United States citizens have always used should
    not be a barrier to full participation in the Federal system if
    they want it.
        Another provision would call for measures to enhance
    English education in public schools in a transition to
    statehood. We understand it to mean measures that would
    supplement educational practice in Puerto Rico, consistent with
    local control of schools.
        Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to
    make Eng-

    lish the official language of the Federal Government and the
    need to use English. As you may be aware, the President
    indicated his intent to veto a bill last year, H.R. 123, that
    would have required the Federal Government to conduct most of
    its official business in English only. Legislative statements
    on a need to use English could be used by others to promote
    goals which are disharmonizing and diversionary. They could
    also unduly influence the Puerto Rico status decision.
        The bill would make some other statements or suggestions
    which would not be part of the procedure for resolving the
    status issue that are problematic. These provisions address the
    current situation and have contributed to controversy about the
    bill in Puerto Rico.
        History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities
    that have fueled Puerto Rico's divisive and distracting status
    debate for decades. Rather than litigate them now when there is
    a general consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the
    dilemma, we think it would be more advisable to simply
    concentrate on resolving it, establishing a process that
    includes providing the people of Puerto Rico with options that
    can end the debate and providing for Federal action on
    implementing their choice.
        Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet
    its responsibilities regarding the status question and provide
    such a process. Puerto Ricans have been asking for the United
    States to act for years. H.R. 856 provides a basis from which
    to act. Working together and with others, we can ensure that
    our great country lives up to its ideals in the case of our 3.7
    million fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. It is of vital
    importance to their future that we do.
        The Administration's priority is to get a law enacted that
    will make it possible to finally and fairly resolve the
    situation. We will be flexible within the principles that the
    President has espoused so that agreement can be reached. All of
    us who are committed to settling the issue should not let this
    opportunity pass.
        Thank you.
        [Statement of Mr. Farrow may be found at end of hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Jeff. That was very good. I will
    assure that this is what hearings are all about. We will take
    your comments very seriously and hope you will still be working
    with Manase and seeing if some of these things can't be added
    and subtracted from the bill. My goal is to keep you aboard and
    the President aboard, because I would like to see this done
    very quickly. There is some comments about the length of time
    of implementing the act, et cetera. I would like to see it done
    as rapidly as possible. And we will work along the lines of
    achieving that. You have a responsibility to the
    Administration, but that Administration has a responsibility to
    this Committee to try to achieve those goals together. We can't
    do it separately. And I think we owe that to the people of
    Puerto Rico.
        The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    congratulate and congratulate the President on this statement.
    I think it is a very, very significant statement. It is going
    to be definitely an historical statement. The questions in the
    statement about the language clears a lot of the air. I am sure
    it will have a great impact in Puerto Rico. Anything that makes
    such a statement from the White House on Puerto Rico has a lot
    of meaning. And the peo-

    ple understand that clearly and it helps in the debate so the
    people learn to understand where everyone is coming from. The
    fact that there are some people in this country that would like
    to impose a will and would like to carry us in a different path
    doesn't mean that the majority of the people of the United
    States or the majority of the Congressmen or Senators or the
    White House take those positions.
        And some of the other statements in your statement also are
    very, very positive and I think that now we have the proposal
    by the commonwealth supporters and we will soon have the other
    proposals, then we can discuss the alternatives. And I am sure
    that we can have something that will be fair, if not to
    everyone at least to the majority and to the objective
    observers.
        Thank you very much for your testimony. I have no
    questions.
        Mr. Farrow. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from American Samoa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
    thank Mr. Farrow for his presentation this afternoon. Just one
    question. You know, we have--the people of Puerto Rico have had
    this experience in the plebiscite of 1993 where there was no
    clear majority. And you have expressed in your statement about
    the fact that whatever is to come about, whether it be from
    this plebiscite process, that there should be a majority. You
    know, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the
    President has to be elected by a majority vote. What happens,
    and as you well know, Mr. Farrow, whenever you have three
    options it is a very, very difficult proposition to get a
    majority. What happens in the plebiscite if there is no
    majority?
        Mr. Farrow. Well, the legislation provides, and we think it
    is proper, that there be a majority requirement. In the event
    of no majority, that there be a reconsideration somewhere down
    the line. Our only question is when that reconsideration ought
    to occur, whether it ought to occur every four years or in a
    time determined by the government of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You have also raised a question about
    that this four-year period might be too long. Do you have a
    better suggestion as to the time period? I felt four years is a
    fair statement for considering the referendums. If it triggers
    that process to take place, do you feel that four years is not
    sufficient time or is it too much time?
        Mr. Farrow. I think it will depend on the situation. It is
    very difficult to project right now what the results of
    referendum would be. And depending on how close those results
    are, the government of Puerto Rico might want to hold a
    referendum earlier or sometime later than that rather than set
    a specified time period. We think that is a matter the
    government of Puerto Rico ought to determine.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So as much as you can say that the
    Administration definitely is fully committed to the proposition
    and the plebiscite should be held by next year, hopefully? Is
    that a fair statement? You are committed to that?
        Mr. Farrow. It is a fair statement. And further, the
    President looks forward, as I said, to implementing a majority
    decision during his term.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Farrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I would just like to compliment all the
    witnesses today and the audience that conducted themselves
    admirably today. I apologize for the interruptions. I believe
    this has been a very beneficial hearing, and I deeply
    appreciate the Governor chairing this meeting in a bipartisan
    way. And hopefully we can continue this. The next hearings will
    take place in Puerto Rico. It is my intent to move this
    legislation. It is my intent to see it pass the House and be
    signed into law, but it also takes a lot of work, a lot of
    communication with everybody involved. And try to avoid the
    pitfalls of delay and impasse, because this is the period of
    time I want to get this done.
        I do thank you. Thank you very much. This meeting is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and
    the following was submitted for the record:]

      2Statement by The Honorable Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico

        Chairman Don Young; Ranking Democrat, Congressman George
    Miller; members of the Committee on Resources:
        My name is Pedro Rossello. Since 1993, I have been Governor
    of Puerto Rico. In that capacity, on two occasions, I presented
    statements to the 104th Congress that may be of interest to
    each of you.
        On October 17, 1995, here in Washington, I
    addressed a hearing conducted jointly by this Committee's
    Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee and by the
    Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee
    on International Relations.
        Then, on March 23, 1996, I appeared before the
    Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee at a hearing
    conducted in San Juan.
        My October 1995 statement pertained to a November 1993
    political status consultation, organized by the Government of
    Puerto Rico with the full support of all three Puerto Rico
    political parties.
        My March 1996 statement pertained to H.R. 3024: a bill
    filed by Chairman Young, which bore the same title as the
    measure before us today.
        Because of their relevance, and because they may be
    particularly useful to members of this Committee who did not
    serve on the aforementioned Subcommittees of the last Congress,
    I shall be grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those
    statements available to every member of the Committee on
    Resources of this 105th Congress.
        Although I am the president of a political party, and
    although I do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto
    Rico's status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at the outset that
    my declarations at this hearing shall be made solely in my role
    as chief executive of the Government of Puerto Rico and on
    behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, as the recipient this past
    November of the largest electoral mandate granted to any
    gubernatorial candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.
        In addressing you as Governor, and as the spokesperson for
    a strong mandate from the people to move toward the final
    definition and decision on our political status, I see it as my
    duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my assistance as
    you commence the profoundly important process of evaluating
    H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
        For the past eight years, both the people of Puerto Rico
    and the United States Government have manifested a commendable
    commitment to addressing this issue seriously, responsibly and
    in an impressively non-partisan manner.
        In 1989, a pro-``commonwealth'' Governor enlisted the
    backing of all three Puerto Rico political parties in
    soliciting action from the Federal Government. That petition
    produced an earnest, positive response from a Republican
    President and a Congress controlled by Democrats. More than two
    years of dedicated effort resulted from that initiative. The
    effort fell short. But it did not fail. Rather, it left behind
    a valuable foundation upon which we have been building ever
    since.
        And so it was that my administration--led by a pro-
    statehood Governor--succeeded four years ago in maintaining a
    united front of Puerto Rico political parties in resuming the
    quest for a solution to the status dilemma. And so it was too
    that--with a Democrat in the White House and Republican
    majorities on Capitol Hill--Washington has remained equally
    united, since 1995, in pursuit of a mutually satisfactory
    remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto
    Rico's current relationship with the rest of our fellow
    citizens of the United States of America.
        President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the
    beginning of this year. In a letter that was read aloud by his
    personal representative, during my second-term inauguration
    ceremony in January, the President wrote: ``I will work with
    you, the islands' other elected leaders, the Congress, and all
    concerned to establish a process that would enable the
    fundamental issue of Puerto Rico's political status to finally
    be resolved.''
        Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and
    Ranking Member Miller have mobilized a broad bipartisan
    coalition--with the solid backing of Speaker Newt Gingrich and
    the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-
    Barcelo.
        On the Senate side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited Puerto
    Rico this past weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation from
    his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Senators held
    lengthy meetings with senior officials from the political
    parties representing Puerto Rico status options.
        In light of these developments, I can state for the record
    that the people of Puerto Rico are looking forward with
    enthusiasm to the imminent exercise by Congress of its
    constitutional responsibility to collaborate with us on
    converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto Rico's status into a
    shining star of statesmanship.
        I am convinced that together we can do it
        Through determination, persistence, unflagging effort and
    an unshakable allegiance to patriotic civility, we can do it.
        Moreover, we can do it expeditiously.
        I commend you, Mister Chairman, for having requested of
    each Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a
    proposed definition which it believes will be most appropriate
    for the status option it supports. It is my understanding that
    each of the parties intends to comply with that request.
        You acted expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, in filing H.R. 856.
        You acted expeditiously in scheduling this hearing.
        You acted expeditiously in requesting status definitions.
        And I would urge that we likewise expedite the entire
    process contemplated by this bill.
        A year ago this week, in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024,
    I proposed that the process be streamlined. Like that earlier
    bill, H.R. 856 envisions ``a transition plan of 10 years
    minimum which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico
    consistent with the terms of this Act...''
        Nothing has transpired during the past 12 months to alter
    my outlook on this aspect of the legislation. Accordingly, I
    take this opportunity to urge once again that this bill's three
    stages--initial decision, transition and implementation--be
    consolidated into two stages.
        I feel certain that the transition and implementation
    stages can be combined in such a way as to eliminate any need
    for conducting the interim referendum that is stipulated by the
    bill under the provisions set forth in its transition stage.
        If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-
    government during the initial decision stage, then I see no
    reason why ten-or-more additional years must elapse before we
    are able to cast definitive ``yes-or-no'' votes on a
    Presidentially-submitted and Congressionally-approved
    implementation formula.
        A ``streamlining'' of this nature would save time, energy
    and money; it would facilitate completion of the entire
    process, with the utmost, focused attention to detail, during a
    time period that could easily be reduced to a maximum of four-
    to-five years.
        But more than that, by expediting matters we can help to
    ensure that the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
    achieves its purpose because--by expediting matters--we can
    greatly enhance the likelihood that the momentum of this
    historic undertaking will not be weakened by unforeseen events
    that could occur as we go forward.
        And furthermore, it would send a strong message to all that
    Congress is ready and committed to act.
        When I first offered this suggestion at the San Juan
    hearing of March 1996, my exact words were these: ``Ten years,
    I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long time. Ten years
    ago, there were two Germanys and a Berlin Wall; South Africa
    was still under apartheid; the North American Free Trade
    Agreement was merely a promising idea; and almost nobody had
    ever heard of the Internet. A ten-year minimum, I believe, is
    more time than we need.''
        Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly
    propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people
    of Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens throughout the United
    States to conclude, at the sunrise of the 21st century, an
    extremely significant item of unfinished business that has
    awaited this nation's undivided attention ever since the
    twilight hours of the 19th century.
        To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Committee, you can count on me. You can count on me to work
    with you; with your Congressional colleagues; with the
    President; and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count on
    my good faith, my good will, and my unwavering commitment to
    the fundamental principle of civil rights and human dignity
    that this bill so eloquently embodies: the principle of liberty
    and justice for all.
        May God bless each and every person who participates in
    this noble endeavor.
        Thank you very much.

                                    ------

     Statement of Senator Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President, Puerto Rican
                               Independence Party

        For almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political
    persuasions have struggled--unsuccessfully--for the recognition
    of our full political rights as a people before a Congress that
    has, for the most part, been hostile or insensitive to our
    demands. Today--on the verge of the 21st century--it is a
    source of optimism that Congress finally begins to recognize
    its centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico.
        But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable
    instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico's status problem,
    certain conditions should be met and certain pitfalls avoided,
    some of which require major changes in the bill.
        1. The essential objective and nature of the bill must be
    maintained at all costs. This bill unambiguously faces and
    proposes a solution to the fundamental issue of sovereignty--
    the issue of where will ultimate power reside--which is the
    crux of the Puerto Rican status problem. In other words, it
    proposes a process for the definitive solution of the status
    problem by promoting a decision between two paths; one, under
    US sovereignty, leading to statehood, and the other under
    Puerto Rican sovereignty, leading either to independence or
    free association. Territorial Commonwealth on the other hand is
    viewed as the problem to be outgrown and superseded.
        2. So long as the fundamental objective of the bill is
    preserved, the legitimate interests and demands of the
    participants in the status debate must be provided reasonable
    accommodation. This, of course, includes not only
    ``independentistas'' and statehooders but, also thousands of
    Puerto Ricans who do not support either independence or
    statehood.
        In this context, while independence and free association,
    as modalities of Puerto Rican sovereignty, must continue to be
    grouped under the same heading on the proposed plebiscite
    ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified.
    Free association and independence are members of the same
    family; but they are first cousins, not identical twins.
        I propose therefore that the bill be amended to ``flesh
    out'' the free association and independence modalities within
    the ``separate sovereignty'' alternative, or as I prefer, the
    ``Puerto Rican sovereignty'' alternative.
        If this proposal is accepted then it will not be necessary
    to include the territorial status quo as an option. Even the
    Popular Democratic Party rejects the option of an
    unincorporated territory subject to the power of Congress under
    the Territorial clause of the US Constitution. While we should
    all favor ``inclusiveness'', it would indeed be a perversion of
    that concept to include a colonial or territorial option that
    nobody favors.
        Territorial Commonwealth was included because the bill was
    attacked for excluding a substantial segment of Puerto Rican
    public opinion. But once the free association modality has been
    reformulated in such a way as to address the legitimate
    concerns of its proponents, there would be no need for its
    inclusion, and the bill would once more guarantee a majority
    vote for one of the two paths leading to full self government.
        3. This bill should at least reflect a sense of Congress
    regarding the truly critical questions which it would have to
    face and answer in the event of a statehood petition.
        Congress should not convey the impression that a mere
    majority vote in the plebiscite is the only condition it would
    require in order to grant statehood. I am convinced that if
    this bill is perceived in Congress--rightly or wrongly--as an
    implicit commitment to grant statehood after a majority vote by
    the Puerto Rican electorate, it may never become law. The
    reason is simple. Such commitment would run contrary to
    legitimate political and economic concerns of those members of
    Congress who, in the House or in the Senate, are uninclined to
    accept Puerto Rico as a state or who question the wisdom of
    such an implicit offer.
        Crucial questions regarding statehood for Puerto Rico
    arise, which should be addressed in this bill:
        *Is it the sense of Congress that statehood for Puerto Rico
    would be possible unless English becomes the primary or common
    language of Puerto Ricans?
        *Would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto
    Rico's per capita income remains--as it has for the past 50
    years--one third that of the United States and one half that of
    your poorest state, considering the repercussions of that
    reality on the federal treasury?
        *Is statehood conceivable without a solid and overwhelming
    political consensus in its favor in Puerto Rico far beyond a
    mere majority?
        *Is Congress willing to face a Caribbean Quebec if a
    minority for separate sovereignty should become a majority in
    the next generation?
        Needless to say, this Congress cannot anticipate the
    answers to these questions in a way that would bind a future
    Congress. The critical question, however, is a political one
    which only this Congress can answer: should Congress authorize
    a plebiscite with a statehood option, without first providing
    the people of Puerto Rico a clear sense as to what criteria it
    would use to evaluate a statehood petition?
        At a minimum. Congress should make clear that if the
    statehood alternative achieves a sufficient majority but
    Congress does not then act favorably on the petition within a
    reasonably short period of time then the statehood alternative
    should be deemed to have been rejected. Accordingly in order to
    achieve its primary objective, the bill should mandate that in
    such an eventuality the People of Puerto Rico should then
    choose between the remaining decolonizing alternatives, that is
    between independence and free association.
        4. Fairness and objectivity should be maintained regarding
    the status definitions as they might refer to the potential
    economic effects of the different alternatives. As regards this
    issue, the bill is unbalanced and unjust and should be amended.
        Congress has constitutional and international law
    obligations with Puerto Rico's decolonization, in addition to
    moral and political commitments after almost one hundred years
    of U.S. occupation. In this context, Congress should be
    explicit in its willingness to approve a smooth and fair
    transition towards independence, as well as regarding the
    creation of a reparations or development fund. Such a fund
    would indeed be a small price to pay in order to end the
    overgrowing dependence on the federal budget promoted by the
    status quo and which would certainly multiply with the two
    senators and seven representatives which statehood would
    entail. On previous occasions, both the House of
    Representatives and the Senate have demonstrated that such
    objectives can be attained.
        Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive
    prerogative of statehood. On the contrary, mutually beneficial
    and common sense solutions are clearly available for
    independence in this age of globalization and regional economic
    arrangements. The bill should reflect these concepts in order
    to be fair and balanced.
        There are hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who are
    now inclined towards statehood only because they have been led
    to think that a choice for independence would lead to economic
    penalties imposed by the United States through a regime of
    tariffs and trade restrictions. On the other hand they have
    been led to contemplate a statehood panorama of an eternal
    cornucopia of federal welfare funds guaranteed by two senators
    and seven representatives. It is up to Congress to dispel these
    myths by stating its sense as to what its trade and assistance
    policies would be towards an independent Puerto Rico.
        5. It is of the utmost importance that Congress face the
    matter of US citizenship under the Puerto Rican sovereignty
    alternative in a clear and realistic manner. It should begin
    its analysis by separating myth from fact.
        I am firmly convinced that the principal value that the
    immense majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their US
    citizenship is the right to travel freely to and from the
    United States. This should come as no surprise.
        The importance of Puerto Ricans' free transit into the
    United States, however, cannot be underestimated. For almost
    one hundred years--even before Puerto Ricans became US citizens
    in 1917--free transit and free trade have been part of the US-
    PR relationship by virtue of US law and policy since 1900. More
    than two million Puerto Ricans live in the United States either
    permanently or temporarily and there is hardly anyone in Puerto
    Rico who does not have a close relative who lives in New York,
    Chicago, Philadelphia or other cities.
        It is within this historical context of free transit--
    existing before and after the imposition of US citizenship--
    that the majority of Puerto Ricans react with apprehension at
    the threat of losing that freedom to travel which they equate
    to US citizenship.
        As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation if this
    Congress expresses or implies that free transit is only
    possible under statehood it will be promoting an artificial pro
    statehood majority that has nothing to do with the spirit of
    patriotic commitment to the United States which should be the
    real basis of a serious pro statehood sentiment. As recently as
    this month the governor of Puerto Rico, in promoting this myth,
    insisted that regarding the plebiscite ``the decision that must
    be made is whether we want to be American citizens or not. That
    is the basic decision.''
        Loyalty to one's nation and freedom to travel to other
    nations are, as Americans well know, two different things. By
    separating the issue of free transit from the issue of
    citizenship you will have defused the artificial growth of the
    statehood movement.
        As far as we independentistas are concerned we aspire
    exclusively to our own Puerto Rican citizenship in an
    independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Ricans
    born before independence who want to retain their US
    citizenship after independence, they should be allowed to
    retain it. In any case, if they were not allowed to do so, the
    US courts would have the final word on the matter.
        As regards Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress
    would be wise to allow for free transit arrangements between
    both countries. I remind you that a very large percentage of
    the Puerto Rican nationality resides in the United States and
    that it was the US who, after the invasion of our nation,
    created and promoted free transit, and that at present there is
    free transit between Puerto Rico and the US; so surely the
    United States would not be worse off under independence than at
    present. If the European Community countries have successfully
    entered into such free transit arrangements without a similar
    99 years precedent, there is no reason why the United States
    should have any problem in reaching a similar arrangement with
    an independent Puerto Rico.
        6. The bill should be amended to substantially reduce the
    time frame provided for the full implementation of the
    different alternatives.
        In this respect, since the status alternatives require, by
    their very nature different procedures and conditions for their
    implementation, the temptation of false symmetry should be
    avoided. Independence, for example, being an unalienable right
    of the Puerto Rican people, should and could come into effect
    in a very reduced period of time. Once independence has been
    proclaimed, a transition period involving economic and other
    matters would be implemented over an extended period of time.
        On the other hand, statehood not being a right but a
    privilege to be granted at the will of Congress, it would
    necessarily require a different time frame which should be as
    short as practically possible. We believe that the more than 10
    years proposed in the bill should be drastically reduced. It
    would otherwise become a way of avoiding the difficult
    decisions that sooner or later Congress will have to face
    regarding statehood.
        7. The bill should guarantee that all the options have
    adequate and equal access to public funds in the plebiscite
    campaign; that a reasonable limit on spending for advertising
    beyond that provided for by public funds be imposed so as not
    to create an unfair advantage for any option; and that
    government funds and agencies are not improperly utilized to
    favor any option.
        8. H.R. 856 should be amended as to who will have the right
    to vote in the plebiscite.
        It should be obvious that if the plebiscite is not a
    general election to select public officials but a special
    election to advance the cause of self determination of the
    Puerto Rican People, only Puerto Ricans--and not merely
    residents of Puerto Rico--should have the right to vote. By
    Puerto Ricans I mean those born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto
    Rican parentage who reside in Puerto Rico or who, though
    residing outside have the intention to return to live in Puerto
    Rico. As an exception those non Puerto Ricans who have lived in
    Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and who intend to
    remain should also have the right to participate.
        To allow non Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico to vote,
    or to exclude non resident Puerto Ricans, will undoubtedly have
    distorting effects on the election results and call into
    question the legitimacy of the outcome. No objective observer
    would seriously dispute, for example, that the overwhelming
    majority of the non-Puerto Rican residents would vote for
    statehood, either because they are Americans residing in Puerto
    Rico or because, though originally from other countries, they
    became US citizens by choice.
        The anomalies of our colonial condition are such, however,
    that one may clearly anticipate constitutional arguments as to
    the exclusion of non-Puerto Rican residents, and practical
    arguments as to the inclusion of Puerto Rican non-residents can
    also be anticipated. But these constitutional and practical
    obstacles are certainly not insurmountable to a Congress acting
    pursuant to its plenary powers under the territorial clause.
        Even if this committee were unwilling, for whatever reason,
    to agree that the plebiscite franchise be designed in
    accordance with our proposal, this does not mean that the bill
    should not recognize the distorting effect that the electoral
    franchise proposed in the bill implies.
        Needless to say, an imperfect plebiscite is a better option
    than no plebiscite at all, but this committee is by now advised
    that a revision of the bill's franchise provisions is both
    necessary and possible and that not to do so will weaken the
    reliability and legitimacy of the plebiscite results.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        From my long experience with previous processes relating to
    Puerto Rico's status, I have no doubt that as the legislative
    process evolves, the issues I have raised today before this
    Committee will emerge as crucial issues, either in the House or
    the Senate.
        If Congress addresses these issues we are convinced that
    fair and equitable legislation will finally emerge. We are
    willing to work with this Committee to draft the necessary
    specific amendments to meet the objectives we have referred to.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        Before concluding, I wish to set the record straight
    concerning the participation of the Puerto Rican Independence
    Party in this plebiscite process.
        We fully understand why the sponsors of the bill start from
    the premise that statehood would be a legitimate form of self
    government for Puerto Rico. After all, thirty six former
    territories have become states of the Union. In addition a
    large percentage of Puerto Ricans favor statehood and even
    international law admits integration, in certain circumstances,
    as a way out of colonialism.
        But the Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that
    integration to the United States as a state of the Union is not
    a valid solution to Puerto Rico's colonial problem.
        Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature, Spanish Speaking, Latin
    American, Caribbean nation. To argue that Puerto Rico is not a
    nation is as absurd as to argue that blacks in the US were not
    human beings before the abolition of slavery.
        For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a
    dilution, if not an abdication, of our right to govern
    ourselves as Puerto Ricans, no matter how intensely we exercise
    our voting franchise. The problem of Puerto Rico is not a
    problem of the disenfranchisement of a minority or an issue of
    civil rights, as some people seem to believe. It is not a
    problem of individual rights it is a problem of national rights
    of the inalienable right of a nation, of a people, to govern
    themselves.
        Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a
    people to our distinct identity --``Jibaro'' statehood, they
    call it--which in part accounts for their success at the polls.
    Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions proudly and
    forcefully proclaim and have even submitted for the
    Congressional Record that Puerto Rico's language and culture
    are not negotiable under any status. As Gandhi once said, we do
    not ``want [our] house to be walled in on all sides and [our]
    windows to be stifled. [We] want all the cultures of all lands
    to be blown about [our] house as freely as possible. But [we]
    refuse to be blown off our feet by any.''
        You should be aware, therefore, that the primary loyalty of
    Puerto Ricans is to Puerto Rico, not to any other nation, and
    that regardless of what this Congress may resolve or believe,
    we Puerto Ricans are determined to preserve and develop our
    distinct national identity as a people.
        For the US to accept as a state of the Union a distinct
    Spanish Speaking, Latin American nationality with half the per
    capita income of the poorest state, would run counter to its
    national interests, particularly when a substantial consensus
    regarding statehood is a practical impossibility in the
    foreseeable future. Quebec and Ireland are but contemporary
    reminders of the dangers that inevitably ensue when nations
    have attempted to absorb other nations. Nations by definition
    cannot give up their inalienable right to self determination
    and independence that is, their right to secede.
        Independence, on the other hand, which is the ultimate
    empowerment, would endow Puerto Rico with the political, fiscal
    and commercial flexibility indispensable in this day and age to
    insert ourselves into the globalized economy, attract foreign
    capital, strengthen our own, and thus fully develop our
    economic potential.
        For Puerto Rico, independence would be the tool necessary
    to break the cycle of impotence and dependence which has become
    endemic in our colonial relationship and which would only turn
    more acute under statehood. This condition of dependency has
    constrained our economic development and undermined our dignity
    and self esteem. Independence, in contrast with commonwealth or
    statehood, would mean the beginning of the end of the ever
    increasing drain on the federal budget. Moreover, it would be a
    source of incalculable good will for Latin America and the
    Caribbean; an indispensable condition for the development of a
    forward-looking US policy towards the region for the next
    century based on equality and cooperation.
        We are thus convinced that when Congress finally works its
    will, when this process comes to its end, the United States
    government will come to the conclusion that the only true
    option for both of our countries is independence.
        But we are not there yet and it is thus necessary that the
    process work its way. Let us, therefore, move ahead with the
    process.
        The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the
    essential equality of nations in the same way that the relation
    between master and slave denies the essential equality of human
    beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the
    colonizer. For the honor and respect of both our nations let us
    bring it to an end.

                                    ------

    Statement of Anibal Acevedo-Vila, President, Popular Democratic Party,
                          Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

        Good Morning.
        I come before you today at the invitation of Chairman Young
    to attend these hearings with regard to H.R. 856, ``The United
    States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act''. Ever since the
    creation of the unique status of Puerto Rico--Commonwealth,
    which was crafted by the leadership of the Congress and Puerto
    Rico in a constructive process, and was overwhelmingly approved
    as a compact by the people of Puerto Rico and the United States
    in 1952--the Popular Democratic Party has actively participated
    in every status deliberation process.
        We represent the preferred status formula of the people of
    Puerto Rico, having won every status consultation ever
    undertaken. Our position has been supported by a majority of
    the people in all three status plebiscites, in 1952, in 1967
    and most recently in 1993.
        We believe in principles. We believe in democracy. We
    believe in constitutional governments and the everlasting
    premise that the rule of law requires respect from the
    government to commitments made by previous administrations, and
    a serious recognition by all of judicial precedents. We believe
    in the most fundamental of democratic principles: that all
    governments of the free world legitimize their condition as a
    government only with the consent of the governed.
        I commend the sponsors of this bill for their interest in
    establishing a procedure for the people of Puerto Rico to
    choose their final political status. I pledge the full
    cooperation of our party to that end. As in every process
    before, the basic principles of democracy, fairness and
    inclusiveness must always be present.
        We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze
    H.R. 856 and conclude that we cannot and will not support it as
    its stands. (Our position with regard to this bill and a future
    process of self-determination for Puerto Rico is fully spelled
    out in the two resolutions unanimously adopted by the General
    Council of our party, which I am enclosing as appendices to
    this statement and which should be made a part of the record.)
    Appendices C & D.
        The objective of this bill is right, but the means devised
    to accomplish it are wrong. This is not a balanced bill. This
    bill has a severe tilt. It is actually a statehood bill and as
    such is unacceptable.
        The bias which mars this bill is glaring and offensive.
    Commonwealth status, the preferred choice of the Puerto Rican
    people since its establishment in 1952, reaffirmed as recently
    as in the 1993 plebiscite called by the Statehood party itself,
    is pictured in dark colors and dismissed as a colonial status,
    unworthy of consideration. Should the people of Puerto Rico
    churlishly decide to continue backing it, further plebiscites
    must be held, until statehood, independence or free
    association, involving the loss of United States citizenship,
    is chosen. It being well known that the people of Puerto Rico
    want no pact on independence and take proper pride in their
    American citizenship, the result is, of course, pre-ordained
    for statehood.
        For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe
    in autonomy and self-government with American citizenship as a
    bond with the United States, this bill offers no alternative.
    It will require that the more of 900,000 persons I represent
    that are against annexation as a state, choose between a
    colonial denigrating status or loosing our American
    citizenship. To vote in this plebiscite will force us to act
    against our political beliefs and our freedom of speech. It
    will violate the principle of equal protection and trample us
    upon our conscience.
        When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American
    citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, it was made
    completely disassociated from any thought of statehood and
    specifically contemplating that it be an element of future
    autonomous self-government developments for the island. To
    unilaterally change these assumptions now would confront Puerto
    Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no precedent in American
    History.
        With this bill as it stands, Statehood becomes the only
    available alternative. This anticipated result will be unfair
    both to Puerto Rico and the United States. The people of Puerto
    Rico would have to make a choice for statehood for the wrong
    reasons. Not based on patriotism and a real commitment to the
    Union, but because they have been left with no other real
    alternative. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress will have
    before it a petition for Statehood, and a request for action,
    without having considered properly the cultural, national,
    ethnic, linguistic, economic and social consequences of
    statehood. As you can see, this bill will not solve any
    problem, but rather create a bigger one.
        Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair
    and democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September
    17, 1990 with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto
    Rico: ``a referendum should only be authorized by the Congress
    if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses they
    advocate.'' This should be the guiding principle in this
    process of enacting legislation. With all do respect, the bill
    under your consideration does not comply with the fairness
    standard you, Mr. Chairman, previously established.
        The assumptions of this bill, that it is not possible to
    have a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based a mutual
    consent with American citizenship as a bond between Puerto Rico
    and the United States, is against history, legal precedents and
    clearly unacceptable for us.
        We see the joint letter from Congressmen Young and Miller
    of March 3, 1997, giving the Popular Democratic Party the
    opportunity to present a new definition of Commonwealth before
    March 31, as a new approach and openness, to have a referendum
    ``fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate'' and to
    revise the dispositions and assumptions of this bill which have
    until now made impossible any meaningful participation for us.
        A starting point in this process should be the express
    recognition of what the present relationship is. The creation
    of Commonwealth status was a great joint achievement of the
    government of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico.
    Public Law 600 was enacted on July 3, 1950 by Congress
    authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to draft and adopt a
    Constitution. Recognizing the sovereignty of the people of
    Puerto Rico to establish its own Constitution, Congress clearly
    stated in Public Law 600 that: ``fully recognizing the
    principle of government by consent, this act is now adopted in
    the nature of a compact'', conditioning its effectiveness and
    the perfectioning of the compact on it first being approved by
    the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum.
        Public Law 600 was overwhelmingly approved by the people. A
    Constitution was adopted on a second referendum and approved by
    the Congress on July 3, 1952. In Public Law 447, by which
    Congress accepted the Commonwealth Constitution, it is clearly
    stated that Public Law 600 had been adopted as a compact
    between Congress and Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, adopted by the People and approved
    by Congress clearly recognizes the sovereignty of the people
    and the compact between Puerto Rico and the United States
    states:
        ``Section 1. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby
    constituted. Its political power emanates from the people and
    shall be exercised in accordance with their will, within the
    terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto
    Rico and the United States of America.
        ``Section 2. The government of the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico shall be republican in form and its legislative, judicial
    and executive branches as established by this Constitution
    shall be equally subordinate to the sovereignty of the people
    of Puerto Rico.''
        Based on these actions, the United States Government made a
    solemn representation to the United Nations, on the basis of
    which Puerto Rico was struck out from the list of non self-
    governing peoples in 1953. At that time, the United States
    government made clear statements before the United Nations with
    regard to the new status of Puerto Rico of a bilateral compact
    that can only be changed by mutual consent:
        ``The previous status of Puerto Rico was that of a
    territory subject to the full authority of the Congress of the
    United States in all governmental matters. The previous
    constitution of Puerto Rico was in fact a law of the Congress
    of the United States, which was called an Organic Act. Congress
    only could amend the Organic Act of Puerto Rico. The present
    status of Puerto Rico is that of a people with a constitution
    of their own adoption, stemming from their own authority, which
    only they can alter or amend. The relationships previously
    established by a law of Congress, which only Congress could
    amend, have now become provisions of a compact of a bilateral
    nature whose terms may be changed only by common consent''.
        On November 27, 1953 the General Assembly of the United
    Nations approved Resolution 748 VIII which specifically
    declares that: ``In the framework of their Constitution and of
    the compact agreed upon with the United States of America, the
    people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested
    with attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify
    the status of self-government attained by the Puerto Rican
    people as that of an autonomous political entity''.
        The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
    Puerto Rico is to be deemed ``sovereign over matters not ruled
    by the [United States] Constitution''; that ``the purpose of
    Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to
    Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally
    associated with a State of the Union''; that ``Puerto Rico
    occupies a relationship to the United States that has no
    parallel in our history''; and that ``Puerto Rico, like a
    state, is an autonomous political entity'' [Calero-Toledo v.
    Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663, 672-673 (1974);
    Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1, (1982);
    Posadas v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328 (1986); Examining Board v.
    Flores de Otero, 426 US 572, (1976)]. While sitting in the
    Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Judge, now Justice,
    Breyer stated in a landmark case [Cordova v. Chase Manhattan
    Bank, 649 F. 2d 36, (1981)]:
        ``In sum, Puerto Rico's status changed from that of a mere
    territory to the unique status of Commonwealth, and the federal
    government's relations with Puerto Rico changed from being
    bound merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the
    people of Puerto Rico as the United States citizens, to being
    bound by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions,
    Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the
    rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States
    citizens''.
        Of the various of cases decided by Federal Courts touching
    upon Commonwealth status, opponents to this option single out
    the case of Harris vs. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) to
    establish that Congress may, at any time, unilaterally alter or
    abolish Commonwealth. However, the point of law before the
    Court in Harris vs. Rosario dealt with the question of whether
    it was constitutional for an act of Congress to deny Puerto
    Rico residents benefits under the AFDC program otherwise
    available to that citizen if residing in the mainland. To
    justify unequal treatment between the Puerto Rico residents and
    those of the several states in its brief discussion the Supreme
    Court made reference to the territorial clause of the U.S.
    Constitution.
        However, there was no claim that the Commonwealth compact
    required that Congress must extend to Puerto Rico, in equal
    terms, all federal aid programs. Therefore, the holding in
    Harris vs. Rosario in no way invalidates the compact by virtue
    of which Commonwealth was created. Moreover, in all the cases
    after Harris in which the Supreme Court has confronted an issue
    regarding the nature of Commonwealth, the Court has validated
    the main principles of our present status. (See Rodriguez v.
    PDP, supra, 1982; Posadas v. Tourism Co., supra, 1986). (For
    further discussion of Harris see Appendices B.)
        The definition of Commonwealth contained on H.R. 856 denies
    these precedents, presents Commonwealth as a classic colonial
    status and for the first time proclaims the revocability of the
    American citizenship all Puerto Ricans enjoy since 1917. Under
    these circumstances, Commonwealth followers which I represent,
    have no place to vote on the ballot proposed by this bill. It
    will force us to choose between a colonial alternative that
    goes against our beliefs and constitutional rights or, on the
    other side, deprive our children and grandchildren of the
    American citizenship. Two alternatives clearly unacceptable.
        History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship
    are not mutually exclusive concepts. Moreover, American
    citizenship has always been the bond for a permanent union
    entirely disassociated from statehood.
        This principle was clearly outlined by President Taft in
    his 1912 State of the Union address, advocating in favor of a
    bill pending in Congress to grant American citizenship to all
    Puerto Ricans, where he stated:
        ``I believe that the demand for citizenship is just, and
    that it is amply earned by sustained loyalty on the part of the
    inhabitants of the island. But it must be remembered that the
    demand must be, and in the minds of most Puerto Ricans is,
    entirely disassociated from any thought of statehood. I believe
    that no substantial approved public opinion in the United
    States or in Puerto Rico contemplates statehood for the island
    as the ultimate form of relations between us. I believe that
    the aim to be striven for is the fullest possible allowance of
    legal and fiscal self-government, with American citizenship as
    the bond between us; in other words, a relation analogous to
    the present relation between Great Britain and such self-
    governing colonies as Canada and Australia. This would conduce
    to the fullest and most self-sustaining development of Puerto
    Rico, while at the same time it would grant her the economic
    and political benefits of being under the American flag''.
        As to the legal problems that conceivably could be raised,
    by granting American citizenship, Felix Frankfurter, when he
    was serving at the War Department, wrote in 1914 and is cited
    in Mora v. Torres, 113 F.Supp. 309, 319 (District of Puerto
    Rico, 1953), waiving aside sham constitutional objections:
        ``The form of the relationship between the United States
    and unincorporated territory is solely a problem of
    statesmanship.
        ``History suggests a great diversity of relationships
    between a central government and dependent territory. The
    present day demands upon inventive statesmanship is to help
    evolve new kinds of relationships so as to combine the
    advantages of local self-government with those of a
    confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has left this
    field of invention open''.
        Congressional and official actions after the enactment of
    Commonwealth have been consistent with these principles and
    precedents that now this bill intents to unilaterally revoke.
    There is ample evidence, moreover, that Congress has expressly
    recognized the non-territorial character of Commonwealth
    Status. The report of 1964 of the federally created United
    States Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico
    (Public Law 88-271) states:
        ``The Commission's mayor conclusion is that all three forms
    of political status--the Commonwealth, Statehood, and
    Independence--are valid and confer upon the people of Puerto
    Rico equal dignity with equality of status and of national
    citizenship.
        ``The Commonwealth relationship was established through
    bilateral agreement. It is clear that the U.S. Government
    entered into a solemn agreement with the Puerto Rican people in
    1952 and that the agreement, referred to in the legislation as
    the compact, bears permanent legal consequences.
        ``A solemn undertaking of such profound character between
    the Federal Government and a community of U.S. citizens is
    incompatible with the concept of unilateral revocation. It is
    inconceivable that either the United States or Puerto Rico
    would, by an act of unilateral revocation, undermine the very
    foundation of their common progress: the fundamental political
    and economic relationships which were established on the basis
    of mutuality.
        ``The key to the continuation and development of the
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the mainland is U.S.
    citizenship. This citizenship carries with it basic personal
    and institutional protections which cannot be encroached upon
    by the Legislature of Puerto Rico or the Congress of the United
    States''.
        Other Congressional documents are consistent with these
    precedents. The basic principles regarding Commonwealth, that
    this bill pretends to deny--a bilateral relationship based on
    mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its
    components--have been recognized in all the bills that the
    Congress has seriously considered to further develop
    Commonwealth in the last 25 years. For example:
        --H.R. 11200-1 introduced in Congress in 1975 to implement
    the result in favor of Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum and
    approved by the House Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs. It
    defined Puerto Rico as an autonomous body politic organized by
    their own, free and sovereign will, joint in permanent union
    with the United States with American citizenship.
        --S. 712 approved by the Senate Energy Committee in August,
    1989, recognizing the bilaterality of the relationship and the
    permanence of the American citizenship.
        --S. 244 was also considered by the Senate Energy Committee
    in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico's autonomy, bilateral
    compact, mutual consent and, U.S. citizenship as a bond of
    permanent union between the United States and Puerto Rico.
    Final Committee vote was 10-10, although major concerns to the
    Commonwealth definition were not reported.
        --H.R. 4765 approved by the Insular Affairs Sub-Committee,
    by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House of
    Representatives in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of
    Puerto Rico to vote for a New Commonwealth.
        So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents
    that clearly show that the assumptions under which this bill
    has been drafted are wrong. Now is time to talk about the
    future. The Chairman, Mr. Don Young, and the ranking Democrat,
    Mr. George Miller, have graciously asked me to submit a
    definition of Commonwealth.
        The definition I am about to present is made recognizing
    the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico to enter into a
    new relationship with the United States consistent with the
    principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union
    that gave birth to the present Commonwealth status. With minor
    changes in order to adjust it to the implementation process
    required by H.R. 856, the Popular Democratic Party believes
    that it would be adequate to work with the definition of a New
    Commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990 which was
    included in the report to H.R. 4765 of the 101st. Congress
    approved by the Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs, by the full
    Committee of the Interior, and unanimously by the full House on
    October 10, 1990.
        Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young
    and Congressman Miller, were members of that Committee and
    voted in favor of the definition I will now present. The New
    Commonwealth should be defined as follows:
        ``(A) The new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would be joined
    in a union with the United States that would be permanent and
    the relationship could only be altered by mutual consent. Under
    a compact, the Commonwealth would be an autonomous body politic
    with its own character and culture, not incorporated into the
    United States, and sovereign over matters covered by the
    Constitution of Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution
    of the United States.
        ``(B) The United States citizenship of persons born in
    Puerto Rico would be guaranteed and secured as provided by the
    Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and
    equal to that of citizens born in the several states. The
    individual rights, privileges and immunities provided for by
    the Constitution of the United States would apply to residents
    of Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto Rico would be entitled to
    receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with
    residents of the several States contingent on equitable
    contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
        ``(C) To enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-
    government over matters necessary to its economic, social, and
    cultural development under its constitution, a Special
    Constitutional Convention would submit proposals for the entry
    of Puerto Rico into international agreements and the exemption
    of Puerto Rico from specific Federal laws or provisions
    thereof. The President and the Congress, as appropriate, would
    consider whether such proposals would be consistent with the
    vital national interests of the United States in the transition
    plan provided for in Section 4 of this Act. The Commonwealth
    would assume any expenses related to increased responsibilities
    resulting from these proposals.''
        This definition describes the minimum content of our
    aspirations. By offering a definition which was the subject of
    serious study, was actively supported by Chairman Young and
    Congressman Miller among others, and met with the approval of
    this Committee and of the whole House a few years ago we mean
    to show our desire to facilitate the work of this Committee and
    bring about a plebiscite in which Commonwealth supporters may
    participate with a clear conscience.
        By using the mechanism of a Constitutional Convention,
    which is already included in Section 4(b) (1) (B) of H.R. 856,
    to implement a vote in favor of the New Commonwealth, we would
    adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by this
    bill.
        The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at
    the future. It is in the process of reorganizing its leadership
    and currently involved in a healthy generational transition
    that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years to
    come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with
    the principles contained in a document adopted last week by the
    Youth Organization of the Popular Democratic Party.
        Commonwealth as an autonomic ideal for the future is the
    only status alternative in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those
    aspirations and goals of the modern world by protecting our
    identity and simultaneously guaranteeing our relationship with
    the United States, with a common market, common citizenship,
    common defense and common currency.
        We believe that modern tendencies show that the ideas that
    will prevail in the new century will be those similar to the
    basic principles of Commonwealth of national reaffirmation and
    political and economic integration among the peoples of the
    world.
        Thank you.
                                    ------

                                  APPENDICES A

       2A NOTE ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO A COMPACT WITH THE
                             PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO

        The Supreme Court of the United States has relied upon two
    sources to sustain Congress' power with respect to territories:
    the inherent and implied powers of the United States as a
    sovereign and the territorial clause, Article IV, Section 3,
    Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. American Insurance
    Co. v. Canter, 26 US 511, 542-43 (1828). Under both powers
    Congress can make contracts or compacts binding upon other
    Congresses.
        The general power to make binding compacts and agreements
    is a necessary corollary of sovereignty. United States v.
    Bekins 304 US 27, 51-52 (1936). In Perry v. United States, 294
    US 330, 352, 253-54 (1935), regarding the gold clause in the
    bonds of the United States, the Court plainly stated that ``the
    right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to
    sovereignty''. A Joint Resolution of Congress that attempted to
    override the obligation created by the bond was accordingly
    held to be beyond Congressional power. See also: Union Pacific
    R.R. Co. v. United States, 99 US 700, 719 (1870), where the
    federal government contracted with states to grant them federal
    lands on certain conditions, the Court holding that such
    agreements had to be honored by future Congresses.
        Binding compacts and agreements can also be made under the
    territorial clause. The power of Congress to contract is
    included within the power to ``dispose'' referred to in that
    clause. See: United States v. Gratiot, 30 US (14 Pet) 526, 537-
    538 (1840), regarding the lease of mineral rights on public
    lands and holding that Congress could dispose partially, as
    well as totally of the property and territory of the United
    States. See also: Ashwander v. T.V.A. 297 US 288 (1936).
        The binding nature of contracts entered into pursuant to
    the territorial clause includes contracts made with the people
    of a territory. See Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 US 223 (1900),
    concerning a contract made between the United States and the
    territory of Minnesota relating to the grant of certain federal
    lands to the territory in trust. Such an action was held
    binding on future Congresses.
        Compacts made pursuant to the territorial clause may deal
    with governmental rights. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
    provides the classic example. The Northwest Ordinance stated
    that several of its provisions ``shall be considered as
    articles of compact between the original States, and the people
    and States in the said territory, and forever remain
    unalterable unless by common consent''. The Northwest Ordinance
    was adopted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of
    Confederation and ratified by the First Congress under the new
    Constitution by Act of August 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 50. Story was of
    the opinion that the Ordinance bound Congress in the exercise
    of its otherwise absolute power under the territorial clause. 2
    Story on the Constitution [Bigelow ed., 1891] sec. 1328.
        Congress may relinquish or dispose of part of its
    territorial powers and retain others. The admission of a
    territory as a state is an example of total disposal. So is the
    Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 761, which granted
    independence to the Philippines. The Northwest Ordinance of
    1787 represents an example of partial relinquishment or
    limitation of Congressional rights under the territorial
    clause. There is no authority for the proposition that the
    United States is forced by its Constitution to opt only for
    total relinquishment of its powers under the territorial
    clause. Independence and statehood are not the only ways out of
    territorial status. As pointed by Felix Frankfurter in his days
    at the Bureau of Insular Affairs at the War Department (see Mr.
    Acevedo Vila's statement before this Committee today), the
    field is constitutionally open to inventive statesmanship.
        The validity of the compact entered into in 1952 between
    the people of Puerto Rico and the government of the United
    States was duly recognized by United States representatives at
    the United Nations in 1953. (See Mr. Acevedo Vila's statement
    for the appropriate quote).
        At various times, although there have been occasions to the
    contrary, the United States Department of Justice has admitted
    the constitutional possibility of a compact between the people
    of Puerto Rico and the government of the United States. On
    April 2, 1962, it stated that the more reasonable conclusion
    would be ``to read the Constitution as not restricting
    Congress' power to construct such political relationships with
    the territories as it may consider necessary in the light of
    particular instances, including one in which it permanently
    divests itself of part of its territorial powers''. (J. Trias
    Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras,
    Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1983, vol. 4, p.
    184).
        The United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of
    Puerto Rico, established by Congress in 1964, 78 Stat. 17,
    concluded in its 1966 report that ``All three status
    alternatives--the Commonwealth, Statehood, and Independence--
    are within the powers of the people of Puerto Rico and the
    Congress to establish under the Constitution''. Report of the
    United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto
    Rico, 1966, p. 6.
        On May 12, 1975, the United States Department of Justice,
    being consulted by the White House as to the constitutionality
    of the proposed Compact of Permanent Union between Puerto Rico
    and the United States (H.R. 11200 and H.R. 11201, 121st
    Congress, 1st Sess.) concluded that ``it is possible for
    Congress to bind future Congresses with respect to Puerto Rico
    by means of a `compact'. This may be viewed either as the
    vesting of certain rights, see, e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US
    244, 261-71 (1901), or as the granting of a certain measure of
    independence which once granted cannot be retrieved. Thus,
    specifically, Article 21 of the proposed Compact, requiring
    mutual agreement for amendment to the Compact, would, in our
    belief, be constitutional. Indeed, its explicit statement would
    appear to be an improvement over the situation under the
    present Compact where there is some question as to the ability
    of Congress to change its provisions''. (President Ford's
    Library, Norman E. Ross Files, Ad Hoc Committee, folders 2-3,
    letter dated May 12, 1975 from A. Mitchell McConnell, Acting
    Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, written as an
    answer to the request of James M. Cannon, Assistant to the
    President for Domestic Affairs).
        As respects court opinions, the question as to the power of
    Congress to enter into a binding compact with the people of
    Puerto Rico has not yet been directly at issue, but many
    rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court
    of Appeals for the First Circuit are incompatible with the
    argument that for Congress to enter into a binding compact
    would be constitutionally impossible. Among such rulings are
    the recognition that Puerto Rico is sovereign over matters not
    ruled by the Constitution of the United States; that Puerto
    Rico has been accorded the degree of autonomy and independence
    normally associate with States of the Union; that Puerto Rico
    occupies a relationship to the United States that has no
    parallel in American history; and that, accordingly, upon the
    establishment of Commonwealth status, Puerto Rico ceased to be
    a territory of the United States subject to the plenary power
    of Congress. (See the note on Harris v. Rosario for the
    appropriate citations).
                                    ------

                                 4APPENDICES B

                          2A NOTE ON HARRY v. ROSARIO

        Harris v. Rosario, 446 US 651 (1981), held in a two-
    paragraph per curiam opinion, citing Califano v. Torres, 435 US
    1 (1978), that Congress was empowered to treat Puerto Rico
    differently than a state in granting aid to families with
    dependent children. The Court briefly referred to the
    territorial clause as the basis for that power. The Court, it
    should be noted, did not face in Harris the question whether
    Congress retained plenary power to legislate for Puerto Rico
    and accordingly said nothing about that. In order to address
    such a momentous issue a full-dress opinion would naturally
    have been required, rather than the summary action taken. The
    Court just ruled in Harris that Congress can under the
    territorial clause treat Puerto Rico differently than a state
    as respects the application of aid programs. The power of
    Congress to do so has, of course, never been challenged by the
    government of Puerto Rico, as it actually provides one of the
    constitutional bases for the unique nature of Commonwealth
    status. The interpretation of Harris advanced by critics of
    Commonwealth status simply misses the substantial distinction
    between the power of Congress to treat Puerto Rico differently
    than a state and the power to legislate for the unincorporated
    territories basically at its pleasure.
        Harris does not, therefore, support the understanding of
    its meaning propound by critics of Commonwealth status. Such an
    interpretation of Harris runs counter to other decisions of the
    United States Supreme Court issued both before and after
    Harris.
        Should the construction put on Harris by critics of
    Commonwealth status to be correct, why is it that neither the
    United States Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals most
    familiar with Puerto Rican matters, that for the First Circuit,
    not only has ever failed to follow such an interpretation, but
    actually ruled to the contrary?
        Contrary to the bizarre interpretation of Harris favored by
    critics of Commonwealth status, these are some of the
    statements issued by the United States Supreme Court and the
    Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the status change
    represented by the establishment of the Commonwealth:
        ``We readily concede that Puerto Rico occupies a
    relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our
    history...'' Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 US 572
    (1972).
        ``Puerto Rico is to be deemed sovereign over
    matters not ruled by the Constitution''. Calero Toledo v.
    Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663 (1974); Rodriguez v.
    Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1 (1982); Alfred L. Snapp &
    Son Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 US 592 (1982), Posadas de Puerto
    Rico Assc'n v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328 (1986).
        ``The purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952
    legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy
    and independence normally associated with States of the
    Union''. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra.
        ``Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous
    political entity''. Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party,
    supra.
        ``The theme that consistently runs throughout the
    legislative history of Puerto Rico's attainment of Commonwealth
    status is that Commonwealth represents the fulfillment of
    increasing self-government over local affairs by the people of
    Puerto Rico...In sum, Puerto Rico's status changed from that of
    a mere territory to the unique status of Commonwealth. And the
    federal relations with Puerto Rico changed from being bounded
    merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the people
    of Puerto Rico as United States citizenship, to being bounded
    by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law
    600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the rights of
    the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens''. Cordova
    & Simonpietri, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F2d 3 6 (1st
    Cir. 1981).
        ``Thus, in 1952, Puerto Rico ceased being a
    territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress''. United
    States v. Ouinones, 758 Fed. 2d 40 (1st Cir. 1985).
        There is accordingly no basis in law for the proposition
    that Harris establishes that Puerto Rico is still an
    unincorporated territory of the United States subject to the
    plenary power of Congress under the territorial clause.

                                    ------

        Statement of Luis A. Ferre, Former Governor of Puerto Rico, New
                               Progressive Party

        Chairman Young and Members of the House Natural Resources
    Committee:
        Good Afternoon!
        My name is Luis A. Ferre.
        I have advocated statehood for Puerto Rico during my adult
    life, which extends today to 93 years.
        I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973 and I
    appear before you as Founding President of the New Progressive
    Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which
    won the 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331 or
    51.4% for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate
    with l9 seats out of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of
    54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78 municipalities and a vote
    of 973,654, or majority for Resident Commissioner to Congress.
        The New Progressive Party stands firmly behind the Young
    Bill, H.R. 856. We are all happy, indeed, that you have all
    subscribed H.R. 856, which finally opens the road for Puerto
    Rico to make a decision on its ultimate political status in the
    dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress and
    the people of the United States, including statehood as an
    alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which
    the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of
    General Nelson Miles in 1898.
        Upon landing, General Nelson Miles published a proclamation
    which read in part, ``Our military forces have not come to make
    war on the people of the country--but, on the contrary, to
    bring protection,-- promote your prosperity, and bestow the
    immunities and blessings of our enlightenment and liberal
    institutions and government.''
        This proclamation was considered, by our political leaders
    and the Puerto Rican people, as a moral commitment by the
    United States to accept Puerto Rico, eventually, as a state of
    the Union, with full United States citizenship. Accordingly,
    both political parties that participated in the elections of
    1900, under the leadership of the two most important and
    respected leaders, Barbosa and Munoz Rivera, included statehood
    in their platforms, and gave their full support to you
    assumption of our destiny on an equal political basis and moral
    responsibility.
        Unfortunately, and to everybody's disappointment, Congress
    enacted the Foraker Bill to establish the first civil
    government, in 1900, which did not grant United States
    citizenship to Puerto Ricans, acting in contradiction to the
    historical precedent of accepting territories only to become
    states. In spite of this disappoinunent, the people of Puerto
    Rico did not lose their confidence in the ultimate spirit of
    justice and moral responsibility of the United States and
    persisted in their demands for United States citizenship, as a
    step to ultimate statehood.
        We are now approaching one hundred years from the date of
    the signature of the Treaty of Paris, which bestowed upon
    Congress the power to determine the political destiny of Puerto
    Rico, as at last outlined, with options for full self-
    government, including statehood, in Young Bill H.R. 856.
        It took Congress 19 years to grant United States
    citizenship, under the Jones Act, and to establish an elected
    Senate. It took congress 50 years to provide for an elected
    Governor. It took an additional four years to allow us to draft
    and approve our own state-like Constitution in 1952, through an
    elected Constitutional Convention to which I had the honor of
    being elected as a statehood advocate and spokesman.
        In 1950, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to
    vote in a Referendum to accept or reject Law 600, which
    provided for the adoption of the local Constitution, as well as
    to other amendments to the Jones Act of 1917. The Federal
    Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico, as a
    non-incorporated Territory under the Territorial Clause of the
    United States Constitution and the full sovereignty of
    Congress.
        We voted in favor of the Constitution drafted by the
    Convention under the clear understanding that the Commonwealth
    (E.L.A.), as defined therein, was to be a transitory status
    that kept the way open for Puerto Rico to achieve statehood or
    independence, at a future date, if the people so decided.
        Several attempts were made afterwards to interpret and
    modify Law 600, which were rejected by Congress.
        In 1964, and to clarify the meaning of Law 600, under which
    the Constitution of Puerto Rico was granted, the United States-
    Puerto Rico Status Commission as appointed. I was appointed
    member of the Status Commission on behalf of the statehood
    position.
        During the Commission proceedings, I was able to argue
    against the misleading campaign of the advocates of
    Commonwealth status, that statehood for Puerto Rico was not
    attainable and that it would be economically disastrous for the
    Island and an economic burden to the United States, assuming
    the position that I had been sustaining since November 23,
    1949, when I testified before the sub-committee of the
    Committee on Labor and Education of the House of
    Representatives of the United States, that to the contrary,
    Puerto Rico could assume the full economic responsibilities of
    statehood and it would be in the long run an asset to the
    United States, while the territorial status of Commonwealth
    would perpetually be a burden.
        And I added and repeat today, that if we are American
    citizens, then we must be given the tools that our fellow
    American citizens in Continental United States have to solve
    their problems; and these tools are equal rights under
    statehood. Only by having two Senators and six Congressmen who
    can be on the alert all the time and who have the power to
    protect our interests, can the American citizens of Puerto Rico
    give their economy the necessary impetus to solve their
    problems.
        Finally, the Status Commission Report came out with the
    following conclusion amongst others: ``Economic studies
    indicate, that sustained economic growth, under the present
    status and continuation of the special arrangements will make
    statehood with adequate but not extraordinary or unprecedented
    provisions for transition, fully possible, without severe
    risks.''
        ``With respect to the nature of the compact agreed upon
    under Law 600, the Supreme Court of the Untied States is the
    final interpreter, and has not expressed itself, as yet, on
    these matters.'' This was in 1966. Since then, it has expressed
    itself in several instances, in particular, in the case of
    Harris vs. Rosario, in which it ruled that Congress had the
    authority to discriminate against the United States citizens of
    Pueblo Rico, since Puerto Rico was held under the Territorial
    Clause of the Constitution.
        Let me add some political considerations for the admission
    of Puerto Rico as a state, that I expressed before the Sub-
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of
    Representatives of the United States Congress on December 7,
    1959, and which I think are still pertinent today.
        ``The admission of Puerto Rico as a state would greatly
    enhance the position of the United States in world affairs. It
    would be the logical conclusion of a process which started in
    1898, when Puerto Rico came under the American flag. Puerto
    Rico before the year 1900 had the old European authoritarian
    social structure. This structure has gradually evolved into a
    democratic society under the American influence, which began by
    teaching our youth the American principles of individual
    liberty, equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity,
    through the school system and the political institutions, which
    were established after the year 1900.''
        ``This has been, to my mind, the most significant change
    that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag. The
    successful achievement of our economic wellbeing is, therefore,
    a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico and to our
    fellow citizens of the Mainland; a challenge to show the world
    that the American way is the way to both economic success,
    social improvement and political freedom, which can usefully
    serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of other
    underprivileged countries of the world. A challenge of great
    political and human potentialities, which may be of great world
    significance.''
        ``With respect to the relations of the United States and
    Latin America, statehood for Puerto Rico would have still
    greater significance. It would serve to improve and solidify
    the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would
    be the best proof that our Good-neighbor policy is not a mere
    diplomatic posture, but that it is an honest and sincere
    expression of respect of North America for Latin America. It
    would make Latin America feel, that through Puerto Rico and
    through its representation in Congress, their problems and
    aspirations would be better understood, because of our common
    cultural origin and tradition.''
        ``As Americans identified with the political and social
    philosophy of America and its institutions of law, we would be
    able to better interpret our foreign policy to them and help
    the United States to succeed in bringing better understanding
    and cooperation in the common problems of our hemisphere.''
        And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further
    develop the commercial interchange with Latin American, which
    is our natural market, when we are loosing the European market
    to United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan and China, is
    essential to our success and prosperity.
        The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming
    since 1968. In 1964, the Pro-commonwealth Party had 487,280
    votes or 59.4% of the vote and the Pro-statehood Party had
    284,627 or 34.6%. In the last election of 1996, there was a
    complete reversal. The Statehood Party obtained 963,536 votes,
    or 51.3%, and the Pro-commonwealth Party 855,960 votes, or
    45.5%, which shows a clear growing trend for statehood.
        We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a
    state after almost a hundred years of successful democratic
    apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and
    responsibilities. During all this Century, more than 200,000
    Puerto Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that
    United States has been involved with more than 6,000 casualties
    and in several cases with higher casualties than some states.
    More than 2,000 Puerto Ricans soldiers served in the Gulf War,
    amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the 1st Armored
    Division. Four, such as Fernando Luis Garcia, who gave their
    lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have been condecorated
    with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
        Other distinguished leaders who have, also, served the
    Nation are: Admiral Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief
    of NATO Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to
    Spain; Vice Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the
    Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Pedro del Valle, commanded
    the U. S. Marine Corps, First Division in the Pacific; General
    William A. Navas, Jr., who is deputy in Command of the National
    Guard. Dr. Antonia Novello, served as U. S. Surgeon General.
    and Dr. Enrique Mendez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the
    U. S. Army.
        The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much
    we share common values with fellow citizens of the 50 states,
    and how much Puerto Ricans believe in, honor, and defend the
    Constitution of the United States. A look at the myriad ways
    Puerto Ricans have served the United States over the last 99
    years is enough to pass the test.
        President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez to
    his Cabinet, as head of Small Business Administration.
        Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with
    distinction, in Mainstream American to enrich its economy and
    its culture. There are about 2,000,000 Puerto Ricans living
    throughout the Nation, doing constructive and creative work as
    factory workers and professionals, in all fields of activity:
    Thousands of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers
    and professors, in schools and universities.
        In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have
    contributed to enrich American music: Justino Diaz and Pablo
    Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera; our
    great actors, like Jose Ferrer and Raul Julia, have been
    American favorites.
        We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony
    through Museum collections. Today you can see on loan at the
    National Gallery of Art in Washington, the painting, Flaming
    June, by Lord Leighton, which is the key painting and
    masterpiece of the Victorian Exhibition.
        In the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge
    Juan Torruella, chief Justice of the U. S. First Circuit of
    Appeals; Judge Jose Cabranes is member of the United States 2nd
    Circuit of Appeals.
        In the area of sports, we have contributed with many
    baseball players, amongst whom, Roberto Clemente has been
    included in the Hall of Fame; Charles Pasarell, in 1969, was #1
    tennis player in the United States, and now, Gigi Fernandez a
    tennis champion; as well as, Chi Chi Rodriguez, a golf
    professional.
        And last, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is
    embedded in American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the
    Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a
    fearless jurist, a couple of years ago, decided to issue an
    injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball
    strike, and by doing so, sent the baseball players back to give
    Americans, after more than a year, the enjoyment of one of
    their favorite sports. Nobody could be part of America, more
    than this competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true
    image of the freedom and respect of law America stands for.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that time has come to Congress to
    live up to the commitment of equality, under which we were
    brought into its fold. It is time to do justice to more than
    3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico.
    We congratulate you for taking the proper step, with H.R. 856,
    to comply with your moral duly, as it becomes the United Slates
    Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States.

                                    ------

      Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow, Co-Chair of the President's Working
                              Group on Puerto Rico

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members:
        Thank you for inviting the Clinton Administration to
    testify on--
        (1) the general idea of authorizing the people of Puerto
    Rico to express their preference regarding their islands'
    relationship to the United States before the end of 1998 and
        (2) the bill that the Chairman and other Members have
    sponsored to provide a process leading to full self-government
    for the Commonwealth, H.R. 856.
        Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest
    and initiative of Chairman Young and the other primary sponsors
    of H.R. 856 in Puerto Rico's political status dilemma: It is a
    matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political
    rights of millions of U. S. citizens and a major factor in
    determining the approach to many of the serious economic and
    social challenges faced in the islands.
        It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive,
    involving much of the range of Federal policy, central
    questions of identity, a century of history, the interests of
    political parties that are based on conflicting visions of what
    the best status would be, and differences so intense that they
    hinder action on the issue itself and other issues as well.
        President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of
    Puerto Rico's decision of what status their islands should
    have. He has pledged to back statehood or independence if
    Puerto Ricans vote for either one and to do his best to make
    the Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want
    to continue it.
        He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate
    is likely to persist until the Federal Government clarifies
    what the options really are and how they can be implemented:
    The differing status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long
    discussed largely hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that
    have not been made.
        The President has, therefore, favored Puerto Ricans making
    a choice in concert with congressional action in a process that
    is developed together with their representatives.
        Establishing a process that would enable this matter to
    finally be resolved is his highest priority regarding the
    islands. And he is fully committed to working with you and
    others in the Congress, with Puerto Rico's elected leaders, and
    with all concerned to establish it as soon as possible.
        The President's position is that the Federal Government
    should--
        (1) provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that are
    serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed
    aspirations and
        (2) commit to act on implementing an option that is
    authorized by a majority vote in the islands.
        He very much hopes that such a process will be underway
    next year .. . the centennial of the U. S. acquisition of the
    islands. He looks forward to our entering the new millennium
    having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the
    Puerto Rican people.
        To facilitate enactment of the law that is needed, the
    Administration offers the following comments on H.R. 856 and
    urges the Committee to consider them.

        Options

        The bill would provide Commonwealth, nationhood, and
    statehood options.
        Democratic principles require that the expressed
    aspirations of Puerto Ricans be central to the development of
    the options (which must also be viable from the Federal
    perspective). The President regards this as an integral part of
    a sound process.
        We, therefore, view Chairman Young's agreement with Senior
    Democrat Miller to give Puerto Rico's major political parties
    until March 31st to submit alternatives to the options in the
    bill and to seriously consider their proposals as a very
    constructive step and we appreciate the role that Governor
    Rossello and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo also played
    in it being taken. The parties are each recognized as the
    leading advocates for one of the three status formulas that
    substantial numbers of Puerto Ricans have supported:
    Commonwealth, statehood, and independence.
        The Administration encouraged such an outreach and strongly
    supports the procedure that was agreed upon. Consequently, we
    would like to work with the Committee in fashioning the
    options--considering the proposals of the parties and others as
    well as U. S. necessities--after the parties have had this
    opportunity to advance their ideas to you.

        Referenda

        The bill would ostensibly require--
        (1) a referendum before 1999 and
        (2) further referenda at least every four years thereafter
    in the event of: no option obtaining a majority; a majority for
    the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal
    status implementation legislation.
        Rather than suggest a mandate, it would be more appropriate
    to simply provide a process for and facilitate a status choice.
    This is the approach that was used in past legislation on the
    islands' political development. (Public Laws 81-600 and 82-447,
    which helped establish the governing arrangement for Puerto
    Rico, including the Commonwealth Constitution and the Puerto
    Rican Federal Relations Act; Public Law 88-271, which
    established a joint Federal-Commonwealth status commission; and
    the status process bill that the House passed in 1990.)
        We also suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico
    flexibility on calling additional votes. Further votes might
    not be desired by Puerto Ricans so often and in such a case the
    call for revoting at least every four years would be a
    disruptive burden. Additionally, if Puerto Ricans were to
    reject Federal statehood or nationhood implementation
    legislation, it probably would not make sense for them to vote
    again absent further Federal action.

        Transition and Implementation

        The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least
    10 years in the event of a majority for either nationhood or
    statehood.
        Since the measures that would need to be taken have not
    been specified and would change from time to time, we recommend
    that the length of a transition be set in the transition plan
    prepared in consultation with Puerto Rico's leaders. Congress
    would still have its say over the duration since the plan would
    require congressional (as well as Puerto Rican) approval.
        A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require
    that a law be enacted at the end of a ``transition'' to
    nationhood or statehood--in addition to beforehand--in order to
    actually implement a status change.
        The Administration favors prompt, final action on
    implementing a status change if chosen by Puerto Ricans. The
    purpose of a transition should be to permit significantly
    different policies to be implemented on an orderly basis. A
    further decision and, possibly, further requirements at the end
    of a ``transition'' could make the period only a partial
    transition or, even, overturn the status choice. Rejection or
    new conditions after substantial fiscal and program changes had
    been made could be very problematic. The Federal Government and
    Puerto Ricans should have greater assurance of actually
    implementing a status before heading down the path toward it.

        English Language Provisions

        The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of
    the English language that should be mentioned.
        One would establish a policy of English being the ``common
    language of mutual understanding'' in the United States.
        Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness.
    We are also concerned that it could be used to question
    statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most
    of the islands' U. S. citizens have always used should not be a
    barrier to full participation in the Federal system if they
    want it.
        Another provision would call for measures to enhance
    English education in public schools in a transition to
    statehood.
        We understand it to intend measures that would supplement
    educational practice in the islands, consistent with local
    control of schools.
        Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to
    make English the official language of the Federal Government
    and a need to use English--including that Puerto Ricans should
    use it ``to enjoy the full rights and benefits of their
    citizenship.''
        As you may be aware, the President indicated his intent to
    veto a bill last year, H.R. 123, that would have required the
    Federal Government to conduct most of its official business in
    English only. Legislative statements on a need to use English
    could be used by others to promote goals which are
    disharmonizing and diversionary. They could also unduly
    influence the Puerto Rico status decision. And, of course,
    Puerto Ricans should be able to continue to enjoy their
    citizenship rights and benefits whether they continue to use
    Spanish or not.

        Problematic Statements

        The bill would also make some other statements or
    suggestions which would not be part of the procedure for
    resolving the status issue that are problematic. These
    provisions relate to the current situation and have contributed
    to controversy about the bill in Puerto Rico.
        History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities
    that have fueled the islands' divisive and distracting status
    debate for decades. Rather than litigate them now when there is
    a general consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the
    dilemma, we think it would be more advisable to simply
    concentrate on resolving it: establishing a process that
    includes--
        (1) providing the people of Puerto Rico with options that
    can end the debate and
        (2) providing for Federal action on implementing their
    choice.
        Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet
    its responsibilities regarding the Puerto Rico status question
    and provide such a process; Puerto Ricans have been asking for
    the United States to act for years. H.R. 856 provides a basis
    from which to act in the House. Working together and with
    others, we can ensure that our great country lives up to its
    ideals in the case of our 3.7 million fellow citizens in the
    islands. It is of vital importance to their future that we do.
        The Administration's priority is to get a law enacted that
    will make it possible to finally and fairly resolve the
    situation. We will be flexible within the principles that the
    President has espoused so that agreement can be reached. All of
    us who are committed to settling the issue should not let this
    opportunity pass.

                                    ------

    Statement of Governor Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Chairman, Guam Commission on
                               Self-Determination

        The Guam Commission on Self-Determination strongly supports
    H.R. 856 and urges its swift passage. Guam and Puerto Rico have
    a strong historical bond: both territories were acquired by the
    United States as a result of the Treaty of Paris ending the
    Spanish-American War in 1898. Now, almost 100 years later, both
    territories eagerly await a new relationship with the United
    States appropriate for the twenty-first century.
        However, while each territory desires and deserves a new
    relationship with the United States, those relationships will
    by definition be different. H.R. 856 embodies the choices
    available to Puerto Rico regarding its future status, and the
    people of Guam are fully supportive of the people of Puerto
    Rico having a relationship with the United States that reflects
    the will of their people.
        Unlike Puerto Rico, statehood is not an option for Guam in
    the foreseeable future. Because statehood is not an option for
    Guam, any comparisons between Guam's status efforts and Puerto
    Rico's efforts are not helpful. Those who would link the two
    efforts do a disservice to both territories. The only
    similarity is that we have both waited a very long time to
    resolve our status issues, and we are both mutually supportive
    of the efforts of our peoples to achieve political dignity. We
    have our own answer to the question of a new relationship
    between our people and the United States, an answer that is
    appropriate for Guam and is consistent with the choices that we
    have at this time. We endorse a process that calls for
    consideration of Guam's status as a separate question for this
    Committee and for the Congress--we would prefer that attention
    then be given to what is unique about Guam and Guam's quest.
        We sincerely commend Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller
    and the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 856 for your commitment
    to a process of self-determination for the people of Puerto
    Rico. We also want to thank the Chairman for his commitment to
    hold hearings on Guam's status after the Committee has
    concluded its consideration of Puerto Rico.
        From the Pacific to the Caribbean, we join together as two
    peoples linked by a common history and a common journey, the
    quest for our inalienable rights to self-determination. The
    Congress's commitment to this process marks a defining moment
    in this 98 year journey. We look forward to working with the
    Committee on Resources to realize this historic opportunity and
    we fully support the Chairman's efforts in redefining Puerto
    Rico's relationship with the United States. Across two seas,
    from the east and from the west, a question echoes in Chamorro,
    Spanish and English, ``Is there a place for us in this
    community?''

                                    ------

            Statement of Fred M. Zeder II, Rancho Mirage, California

        Mr. Chairman:
        In 1982 I was appointed by President Ronald Reagan with
    Senate confirmation to serve as Ambassador in the post of
    President's Personal Representative for Micronesian Status
    Negotiations. In that capacity I concluded status treaties
    which had been under discussion for over a decade, and by the
    end of 1983 on behalf of the United States I signed the Compact
    of Free Association with the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
    the Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
        From 1983 to 1986 I also represented the Reagan
    Administration in Congressional hearings which led to approval
    of the Compact of Free Association Act (P.L. 99-239), effective
    January 14, 1986. On November 3, 1986, President Reagan issued
    Proclamation 5564, ending the U.N. trusteeship in the Pacific
    islands based on implementation of the Compact. At that time I
    returned to the private sector, after initiating measures to
    decommission the National Security Council interagency office
    which successfully had supported fulfillment of my negotiating
    mission and Presidential instructions.
        I hardly need remind you of those events. As the Ranking
    Minority member on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
    during that period, you asked many of the tough questions that
    the Administration and the island governments needed to answer
    in order to persuade Congress to approve the Compact. Because
    you addressed these issues based on principle without allowing
    partisanship unduly to influence your position, in my view
    there is no one better prepared to provide stewardship in
    Congress regarding the matter of self-determination for Puerto
    Rico.
        In this regard, I have had the opportunity to review
    materials concerning the definition of free association which
    were submitted to the Committee during hearings in 1996 on H.R.
    3024. In order to correct clever but misleading interpretations
    presented to the Committee regarding the legislative history of
    the Compact for associated republics in the Pacific, the
    following subjects are addressed below:
        Status of Puerto Rico Compared to Trust Territory
        Citizenship in Trust Territory Compared to Citizenship of
    Persons Born in Puerto Rico
        Comparison of Decolonization Processes for Trust Territory
    and Puerto Rico
        Basis for U.S. Sovereignty in the Commonwealth Territories
        Nationality and Citizenship in Associated Republics
        Separate Nationality and Citizenship as Required Elements
    of Separate Sovereignty
        Summary of Governing Principles of Citizenship for
    Associated Republic Status (Free Association)
        While there are important similarities and analogies to be
    drawn between the decolonization process for Puerto Rico and
    that resulting from the Micronesian status negotiations, there
    also are fundamental structural differences between Puerto
    Rico's current status and that of the trusteeship for the
    Pacific islands. The distinctions which must be drawn in this
    respect have profound legal and political significance in
    defining options for Puerto Rico. The following discussion is
    based on the existing Congressionally approved precedents,
    which establish how applicable international law and practice
    regarding free association can be implemented consistent with
    the U.S. constitutional process.

        Status of Puerto Rico Compared to Trust Territory

        In the case of the Federated States of Micronesia, the
    Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau, the
    status of their peoples while still within the former trust
    territory had been determined and controlled by the U.S.
    Congress under a Trusteeship Agreement with the United Nations.
    In one sense, the Trusteeship Agreement was merely an
    internationally approved form of plenary U.S. governmental
    authority over the trust territory as provided by the U.N.
    Charter. This Congressional authority was implemented not on
    the basis of U.S. sovereignty, but rather under the trusteeship
    agreement as a treaty between the U.S. and the U.N. to which
    the U.S. became a party through the foreign affairs powers in
    article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as
    relevant provisions of article I, section 8.
        As such, the power of the federal government over the trust
    territory was equivalent to--and in some respects arguably even
    greater than--the power of Congress under article IV, section
    3, clause 2 of the Constitution to govern the unincorporated
    territories over which the U.S. acquired actual sovereignty
    under the Treaty of Paris. For under Article 3 of the
    Trusteeship Agreement the U.N. had agreed that the U.S. would
    ``have full power of administration, legislation and
    jurisdiction over the territory...and may apply to the trust
    territory, subject to any modifications which the administering
    authority may consider desirable, such of the laws of the
    United States as it may deem appropriate...''
        Under this virtually unrestricted power, analogous to the
    broad powers of Congress over the U.S. territories under the
    Territorial Clause, the U.S. made many Federal laws applicable
    to the trust territory, and also created a trust territory
    government under a separate body of trust territory law which
    legalized less-than-equal citizenship status for trust
    territory citizens--even in comparison to those with full U.S.
    citizenship living and working in the trust territory itself.
    Puerto Ricans are familiar with the fact that the legal and
    political rights of all U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico
    are less than when those citizens reside in one of the states,
    but in the trust territory the U.S. citizens residing there had
    preferences, legal rights, privileges and benefits that the
    trust territory citizens did not enjoy.
        This was possible because U.N. trusteeship status existed
    under international law, rather than U.S. sovereignty.
    Consequently, those born in the trust territory never had U.S.
    citizenship, and the U.S. Constitution did not apply directly
    or of its own force. Even the ``fundamental rights'' doctrine
    of the Insular Cases did not apply directly to the trust
    territory because it was not ``Territory or other Property
    belonging to the United States'' for purposes of article IV,
    section 3, clause 2 as construed by the Supreme Court in that
    line of cases. Although there had been some confusion about
    this during the trusteeship period, the non-applicability of
    the Territorial Clause to the trust territory was confirmed by
    Congress in approving the negotiated free association treaty,
    and by the federal courts in cases which include Juda v. United
    States, 6 Cl. Ct. 441 (Cl. Ct. 1984).

        Citizenship in Trust Territory Compared to Citizenship of
    Persons Born in Puerto Rico

        Under the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement people born in the
    trust territory were given the status of ``citizens of the
    Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.'' This is another
    aspect of U.S. trusteeship treaty implementation in the Pacific
    islands that is analogous to the exercise of actual sovereignty
    by the U.S. in Puerto Rico pursuant to which the people of
    Puerto Rico were given the status of ``citizens of Puerto
    Rico'' under the Foraker Act between 1900 and 1917.
        Rather than being a form of indigenous nationality and
    citizenship arising from an exercise of the inherent
    sovereignty of the people, in the case of both Puerto Rico and
    the trust territory these territorial citizenship arrangements
    were conferred in an exercise of U.S. authority which was
    predicated on the non-self-governing status of the territorial
    populations concerned. The only difference is that in the case
    of Puerto Rico the source of the authority for classification
    of territorial citizens was the Territorial Clause, and in the
    case of the trust territory the source of that authority was
    the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement as a treaty.
        In both cases discriminatory citizenship classifications
    and measures based thereon adopted by Congress or the Executive
    Branch of the U.S. federal government--which would not
    withstand constitutional scrutiny if applied to U.S. citizens
    in one of the states of the union--were held by the federal
    courts to be permissible as long as the territorial status
    continued. This remains true in Puerto Rico even though the
    Foraker Act citizenship has been replaced with statutory U.S.
    citizenship under the Jones Act, now codified at 8 U.S.C. 1402.
    See, Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
        Although the inhabitants of the trust territory were never
    given the legal status of U.S. citizenship, in both the case of
    Puerto Rico and the trust territory it was clear that the
    decolonization process would not be completed until each
    territory got out from under the less-than-equal citizenship
    prescribed by the U.S. in the exercise of plenary powers over
    less-than-fully-self-governing peoples. For the currently
    federated Micronesian islands, the Marshalls and Palau that
    meant ending the application of the Trusteeship Agreement,
    which was accomplished in 1986 for the Marshallese and
    Micronesians, and in 1993 for Palau. In the case of Puerto Rico
    it means ending application of the Territorial Clause.

        Comparison of Decolonization Processes for Trust Territory
    and Puerto Rico

        Understanding decolonization of the trust territory under
    U.N. auspices is instructive with respect to decolonization for
    Puerto Rico and the nature of the commonwealth structure of
    self-government as long as Puerto Rico remains under the
    Territorial Clause. For example, it is interesting to note that
    even after the people of the trust territory had exercised
    self-determination to create local constitutional govern-

    ments in the 1978-1981 period, the U.S. retained the ultimate
    authority granted under Article 3 of the U.N. Trusteeship
    Agreement. This, again, is analogous to the retention by the
    Congress of Territorial Clause authority after Puerto Rico
    established its constitution under P.L. 600 in 1952.
        In the case of Puerto Rico, failure to complete the
    decolonization process begun in 1952 precludes full extension
    of the U.S. Constitution or equal citizenship and full self-
    government within the federal constitutional system. Thus, if
    full equality and the related benefits of U.S. federalism are
    desired by the people of Puerto Rico, the decolonization
    process needs to be completed in favor of full political
    integration to realize that desire.
        Similarly, if the people of Puerto Rico desire a completely
    separate identity and existence apart from the U.S.--not just
    social and cultural distinctness but separation in the legal
    and political sense of another constitutional nationality like
    Cuba or the Philippines--it is necessary to complete the
    decolonization process begun in 1952 in favor of independence
    or free association. For just as the U. S. had to end the
    trusteeship before the world would fully recognize the status
    of the associated republics under the Compact of Free
    Association, international recognition of Puerto Rico as an
    independent or free associated nation should not be expected
    until and unless Congress exercises its Territorial Clause
    power in conjunction with an exercise by the President of the
    foreign policy power by approving as a treaty an agreement
    ending U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship in Puerto
    Rico.
        To illustrate the point, even after the Marshall Islands
    called itself a ``Republic'' under its own constitution in
    1978, the U.S. and the community of nations, including
    international organizations, did not recognize it as a nation
    or a legal government in the international sense because the
    status of the government was established under the Trusteeship
    Agreement, which remained in force and continued the virtually
    plenary authority of Congress. Only in 1986 when the U.S. acted
    to effectively end the application of the U.N. trusteeship to
    the Marshall Islands, so that the treaty relationship between
    the U.S. and the free associated nations under the Compact of
    Free Association replaced the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement as the
    legal basis for the status of these new nations, did the
    international community generally begin to recognize that the
    decolonization process was complete for these territories,
    including the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
        This demonstrates the need under both international law and
    the U.S. constitutional process to complete decolonization
    based on a valid self-determination process and accepted
    definitions in order successfully to implement a permanent
    status--be it integration or separate sovereignty--that will be
    recognized by the world as a form of full self-government and
    not merely a more politically correct form of colonialism.
    Thus, there is a need for Puerto Rico to become fully
    integrated or a separate sovereign in order to end application
    of the Territorial Clause and become fully self-governing under
    a recognized definition of that term.

        Basis for U.S. Sovereignty in the Commonwealth Territories

        Perhaps also of interest in relation to the situation in
    Puerto Rico, another part of the Pacific islands trust
    territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, did not adopt the free
    association separate sovereignty model of independence.
    Instead, the Northern Mariana Islands adopted the Puerto Rico
    model of an unincorporated territory with statutory U.S.
    citizenship and a structure of local constitutional self-
    government under the ``commonwealth'' label.
        As a result, U.S. sovereignty was extended to the Northern
    Mariana Islands based on approval of the commonwealth status by
    the voters there in a 1976 plebiscite, rather than by a treaty
    of cession as in the case of Puerto Rico. This was the legal
    basis upon which application of the Trusteeship Agreement was
    terminated and the Territorial Clause became applicable to the
    NMI--which is now an unincorporated territory based on the
    consent to the people.
        Thus, establishment of the commonwealth structure of local
    constitutional self-government with the consent of the people
    in the CNMI also changed the political status of that island
    territory from being part of an international trusteeship to
    territorial status under U.S. sovereignty. The result is a
    status virtually the same as that which Pueno Rico has due to
    the extension of U.S. sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris
    combined with approval of the commonwealth structure of local
    constitutional self-government by the voters of Puerto Rico in
    1952.
        The historical ironies of this decolonization process are
    profound. For the Northern Mariana Islands are only 100 miles
    from Guam, which was ceded to the U.S. under the Treaty of
    Paris along with the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba.
    However, instead of coming under U.S. sovereignty along with
    neighboring Guam, essentially by historical accident the
    Northern Marianas became a League of Nations mandate
    administered by the Japanese.
        The Japanese mandated area was in the larger geographic
    region known as ``Micronesia,'' and included both the Eastern
    Carolines and the Western Carolines--islands chains now
    comprised within the associated republics of the Marshall
    Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia. Because
    of its cession to the U.S. under the Treaty of Paris, Guam was
    not included in the Japanese mandate.
        The Japanese abused the League of Nations mandate by using
    the islands to perpetrate illegal international aggression,
    among other things staging elements of the attack on Pearl
    Harbor from the Marshall Islands. Upon being invaded and
    occupied by Japan during WWII, Guam temporarily was governed
    for the first time under the same power that ruled the rest of
    the Micronesian islands within the mandated area. Much of the
    famous ``island-hopping'' campaign of WWII took place within
    the Japanese mandate area, and both Guam and the Northern
    Marianas were liberated from Japanese totalitarianism in some
    of the bloodiest fighting of WWII.
        However, the Northern Marianas were not ceded to the U.S.
    by Japan at the end of WWII, as nearby Guam and the other
    Treaty of Paris territories had been at the end of the Spanish
    American War. Instead, because they had been under the League
    of Nations mandate system, the Northern Marianas and the rest
    of the Micronesian islands were placed under the new U.N.
    trusteeship system and administered by the United States. Guam
    was restored to unincorporated territorial status under the
    Treaty of Paris.
        The technical legal title of the trusteeship treaty between
    the U.N. and the U.S. was ``Trusteeship Agreement for the
    Former Japanese Mandated Islands.'' Politically, this meant the
    islands were part of an internationally supervised
    decolonization process. However, as a practical and legal
    matter the trusteeship treaty with the U.N. conferred on the
    United States powers of administration in the Northem Mariana
    Islands and the rest of the trust territory at least comparable
    to--and, again, arguably greater than--those which it had
    regarding the Treaty of Paris territories over which the U.S.
    had sovereignty resulting from cession by Spain after losing a
    war with the United States.
        Thus, notwithstanding the advent of the international
    trusteeship system, the U.S. ended up governing the Northern
    Marianas and other islands it occupied after the allies
    defeated Japan in WWII, just as it ended up governing the
    Treaty of Paris territories after the defeat of Spain in 1898.
    However, both the Treaty of Paris territories still under U.S.
    sovereignty and the trust territory were designated ``non-self-
    governing'' areas subject to decolonization consistent with
    Article 73 of the U.N. Charter.
        In the case of the Northern Marianas, the U.S. addressed
    its obligations regarding decolonization by supporting the
    self-determination process leading to the new commonwealth
    structure of local constitutional self-government established
    for the CNMI in 1976. This new constitutional status was
    formally implemented along with the Compact of Free Association
    under Presidential Proclamation 5564 on November 3, 1986. This
    was sufficient to persuade the U.N. to accept the U.S.
    determination to cease reporting to the U.N. on the CNMI, just
    as the new constitutional status of the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico in 1952 was deemed sufficient by the U.N. in 1953 for the
    U.S. to stop reporting on Puerto Rico.
        While the Puerto Rican and CNMI commonwealth models adopted
    with approval of the peoples concerned represent sufficient
    self-government to end reporting to the U.N., the form of local
    self-government established in each case is still subject to
    the Territorial Clause power of Congress and does not
    constitute a form of full self-government based on equality.
    Therefore the ultimate fulfillment of the decolonization
    process has not been completed.
        Thus, the CNMI self-determination process under the U.N.
    trusteeship system has produced for the Northern Marianas the
    same unincorporated territory status as neighboring Guam, the
    very result which might have obtained had it been ceded to the
    U.S. along with Guam in 1898. Despite the fact Guam has been
    part of a different political order than the CNMI throughout
    most of this century, the common Chamorro culture and language
    continue to thrive today in both territories.
        Some people believe Guam and the CNMI should be reunited to
    their pre-colonial condition of inter-relationship, and that
    whether the ultimate status of the islands is full integration
    with the U.S. or separate sovereignty it should be as one
    people. That is a matter to be resolved through the self-
    determination process regarding the ultimate status of Guam and
    the CNMI. Interestingly, Guam is still under an orgamc act
    without a local constitution, but as a result of the combined
    self-determination process for political status and
    establishment of a local constitution in 1976 the CNMI has a
    degree of local self-government comparable to that of Puerto
    Rico.

        Nationality and Citizenship in the Associated Republics

        Turning now to the question of citizenship implications of
    free associated nation status, under Section 141 of the Compact
    of Free Association citizens of the Freely Associated States
    are non-immigrant aliens under U.S. immigration and nationality
    law, but there is a waiver of visa requirements so that they
    may enter, reside and be employed in the U.S. during the period
    of free association. This visa waiver arrangement is not a
    constitutional right, but a privilege under a treaty which is
    unilaterally terminable by the U.S. or the free associated
    nations.
        Any period of residence in the U.S. under this visa waiver
    does not count toward naturalization in the United States, and
    eligibility for naturalization must be established on a basis
    other than birth or citizenship in the trust territory or one
    of the associated republics to emerge therefrom. Similarly, in
    the case of a U.S. territory such as Puerto Rico which chooses
    separate sovereignty, it is clear for reasons discussed below
    that neither birth in the former U.S. territory, statutory U.S.
    citizenship based thereon due to birth in a U.S. territory, nor
    relationship to a person with such statutory citizenship will
    provide a basis for naturalization in the U.S. following
    establishment of separate sovereignty.
        Against this background, the Committee must carefully
    scrutinize the characterizations--in materials submitted during
    hearings on H.R 3024 in San Juan on March 23, 1996--regarding
    the testimony on the Pacific islands free association pact by a
    former State Department officer, James D. Berg. Mr. Berg was
    assigned to my NSC staff during the hearings on the Compact,
    and I can speak with authority about the meaning of his
    testimony during questioning by former Congressman John
    Seiberling.
        In this regard, Congressman Seiberling's questions, as
    quoted at page 5-6 of the legal memorandum attached to the
    testimony of the PROELA witness presented to the Committee at
    its hearing on H.R 3024 on March 23, 1996, correctly noted that
    Section 172 of the Compact of Free Association does not address
    the issue of dual nationality or citizenship. See, Hearing
    Report, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs,
    Committee on Resources, H.R 3024, San Juan, Puerto Rico, March
    23, 1996, p. 136-137. However, since the official section-by-
    section analysis relating to this provision of the treaty
    included a background explanation which addressed the issue of
    dual citizenship, Congressman Seiberling asked and Mr. Berg
    answered the question regarding dual citizenship as recorded in
    the hearing and included in the material submitted to the
    Committee.
        The statement regarding dual citizenship in the section-by-
    section analysis quoted on page 3 of the PROELA testimony
    (Hearing Report p. 127), and Mr. Berg's reiteration of that
    statement in response to Mr. Seiberling's question, correctly
    states U.S. law regarding dual citizenship. Specifically,
    consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1481 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling
    in Afroyim v. Rusk, a person who has U.S. nationality based on
    birth or naturalization in the United States does not
    automatically lose U.S. nationality by acquiring citizenship of
    another country.
        It is well-established under U.S. law and practice that a
    person with citizenship conferred under and protected by the
    U.S. Constitution based on birth or naturalization in a state
    must renounce that status voluntarily and with the intention to
    relinquish U.S. nationality in order for loss of nationality
    and citizenship to occur. However, the Afrovim case would not
    apply to termination of statutory U.S. nationality and
    citizenship under the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of
    Rogers v. Bellei.
        This is especially clear where the citizenship issues
    arises in the context of the law of state succession upon
    establishment of separate sovereignty based on an act of self-
    determination by the people of Puerto Rico. In that
    circumstance, there would not be the same due process issues
    that would arise if Congress simply terminated the statutory
    citizenship of persons who already had acquired it based on
    birth in an unincorporated territory, especially if Congress
    provided for an election between retention of statutory
    citizenship rights or transfer of allegiance and citizenship to
    the new sovereign. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Bellei
    there would be none of the 14th Amendment issues that would
    arise in a case where the nationality and citizenship of a
    person born or naturalized in one of the States of the Union is
    involved.
        Because the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the
    Marshall Islands and Republic of Palau have separate
    sovereignty and are foreign countries under the Compact of Free
    Association, a U.S. citizen who acquires dual citizenship in
    those nations will be treated under U.S. law in the same manner
    as a U.S. citizen who acquires a second citizenship in any
    other foreign country. Thus, no special dual citizenship
    arrangements were made under the Compact of Free Association,
    and existing U.S. law governs this matter without modification
    related to the Compact of Free Association.
        It would be misleading to suggest that the exchange between
    Mr. Berg and Mr. Seiberling provides support for the view that
    the free association status established under the Compact of
    Free Association created any new or special right, or that the
    background explanation on this issue in the section-by-section
    analysis simply can be converted into a provision of law
    governing the nationality and citizenship status of the people
    of Pueno Rico should they exercise their right of self-
    determination in favor of separate sovereignty.
        If the people of Puerto Rico vote to establish separate
    Puerto Rican sovereignty, the procedures for transition to
    separate nationality will be determined by Congress and subject
    to approval by the people of Puerto Rico. All parties will be
    required to take into account, among other things, the
    international law of state succession. Based on U.S. and
    international practice, Congress presumably will provide for
    U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship to be terminated
    in favor of separate Puerto Rican sovereignty, nationality and
    citizenship.
        The PROELA proposal that virtually 100 percent of the
    population of Puerto Rico could keep the current U.S.
    nationality and statutory citizenship status granted under the
    Treaty of Paris and the Territorial Clause, and at the same
    time also acquire separate Puerto Rican nationality and
    citizenship under a new government-to-government treaty
    relationship establishing separate sovereignty, is legally
    inconsistent and politically incompatible with separate
    sovereignty for Puerto Rico. The idea that under separate
    sovereignty the people of Puerto Rico would acquire a
    citizenship right superior to the current limited statutory
    citizenship--that is to say a guaranteed and enforceable right
    comparable to the 14th Amendment citizenship protected by the
    U.S. Constitution under the Afroyim case--is even more
    implausible.
        This would amount to an upgrade from the current statutory
    citizenship status of person born in Puerto Rico under 8 U.S.C.
    1402, based on a vote by the people of Puerto Rico to terminate
    U.S. sovereignty in Puerto Rico in favor of separate
    sovereignty. As discussed below, there are political, legal and
    constitutional reasons why that simply is not going to happen
    under any circumstances.

        Separate Nationality and Citizenship as Required Elements
    of Separate Sovereignty

        While it is possible that some temporary exceptions and
    special rights for people with current statutory territorial
    citizenship may be part of the transition process for Puerto
    Rico if the people choose separate sovereignty, the general
    result will be that the people of Puerto Rico will become
    nationals and citizens of Puerto Rico and U.S. nationality and
    citizenship conferred during the territorial period will end.
    In the case of the Compact of Free Association for the
    Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall
    Islands, Congress granted special temporary immigration status
    for the citizens of the free associated nations when the
    separate sovereignty status was implemented. However, this
    arrangement is terminable by the U.S., and under this
    terminable arrangement the citizens of these associated
    republics are alien non-immigrants under U.S. law.
        Based on existing U.S. policy and practice regarding free
    association, as well as Congressionally determined principles
    which constitute precedent in these matters, establishment of
    full and effective separate nationality is a necessary element
    of separate sovereignty and nationhood itself. Once separate
    Puerto Rican nationality and citizenship is established, the
    eligibility of Puerto Rican citizens for U.S. nationality and
    citizenship status will be determined and controlled by U.S.
    law.
        Similarly, U.S. citizens born in a state of the union with
    14th Amendment protection who are eligible under Puerto Rican
    law to acquire Puerto Rican citizenship will not lose their
    status as U.S. nationals by acquiring Puerto Rican nationality,
    unless they also renounce U.S. nationality with that intention.
    But persons born in Puerto Rico with statutory U.S. citizenship
    under 8 U.S.C. 1402 will lose their statutory U.S. citizenship
    if they do not elect to keep it, or if they acquire or have
    Puerto Rican nationality and citizenship once separate
    sovereignty is established. This is because the U.S. has a
    legitimate interest in limiting statutory U.S. citizenship
    conferred during the territorial era once separate sovereignty
    is established.
        This must be reflected in any decolonization measure
    approved by Congress, especially because given the size of the
    Puerto Rican population in the U.S. and in Pueno Rico--creation
    of automatic mass dual citizenship at the time of establishing
    separate nationality would undermine both U.S. and Puerto Rican
    sovereignty.

        Summary of Governing Principles of Citizenship for
    Associated Republic Status (Free Association)
        There are many other important points that I could make
    about the decolonization process for U.S. administered trust
    territory in the Pacific, and this really has been the bare
    minimum necessary to set the record straight on a very complex
    historical and political process. Again, in my judgment this
    was necessary given the liberties that have been taken with the
    truth by some of the proponents of free association for Puerto
    Rico.
        Free association may be a solution for Puerto Rico's
    status, but the people there will never be given a chance to
    make that decision for themselves unless it first is defined
    accurately and honestly.
        Ironically, the hardest thing about decolonization seems to
    be that there are always people who do not trust the people to
    determine their own destiny. So there often is an attempt to
    stack the deck by defining the choices based on political and
    economics gimmicks that favor one political group over another,
    instead of using straightforward definitions based on the basic
    structure of the actual status options.
        This actually results in delay of self-determination and
    decolonization, because those who think the people are not wise
    enough to choose between accurate and realistic options try to
    manipulate the ballot language. In the case of Palau, for
    example, the attempt to promote the anti-nuclear agenda that
    was part of the ``politics of the moment'' back in 1982 delayed
    Palau's Compact of Free Association for years. This forced the
    U.S. to terminate the trusteeship for the Marshall Islands, the
    Federated States of Micronesia and the Commonwealth of the
    Nonhern Mariana Islands and leave Palau behind as a U.N. trust
    territory.
        That was a difficult and unwelcome political and diplomatic
    task for the U.S. during the last years of the Cold War era--
    but it was a challenge the U.S. faced up to and overcame out of
    our commitment to self-determination and decolonization for the
    people of those two new sovereign nations who had decided to
    take a stand as allies of America. In the case of the Marshall
    Islands, the decision to implement the Compact and thereby
    ensure U.S. access to Kwajalein was an important element of the
    strategic defense initiative which contributed to the end of
    the Cold War.
        As for Palau, its Compact of Free Association eventually
    entered into force, but by then the Cold War was over.
    Ironically, while pursuing a short-sighted anti-nuclear agenda
    largely at the urging of non-Palauans with an anti-U.S. agenda,
    Palau missed its chance to participate more fully in the
    success of President Reagan's strategy to end of the
    uncontrolled superpower nuclear arm's race.
        To help Congress avoid the same kind of mischief in the
    final stage of the decolonization process for Puerto Rico,
    perhaps it would be useful for me to try to state the clear
    citizenship implications of free association for Puerto Rico in
    the most succinct and plain language possible:
        For Puerto Rico to be a nation in the legal and political
    sense, it must separate from the U.S. legally and politically.
    Separation of sovereignty, nationality and citizenship is
    necessary if the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico
    is to be governed by a bilateral pact under which Puerto Rico
    has the status of independence or free association. The very
    term ``bilateral pact'' in this context means two separate
    nations exercising separate sovereignty to create a pact of
    association.
        The current ``commonwealth'' status of Puerto Rico, though
    it is translated into Spanish as something akin to ``Free
    Associated State,'' is not free association as recognized by
    the U.S. or the international community. Free association based
    on a bilateral pact requires separate sovereignty, nationality
    and citizenship.
        The Congress of the United States has the constitutional
    power to terminate the current statutory citizenship of persons
    born in Puerto Rico if separation of sovereignty occurs. That
    which Congress creates by statute it can end by statute, as
    long as due process and equal protection rights of those
    affected are respected.
        The irrevocable citizenship which U.S. citizens born or
    naturalized in the states have under the 14th Amendment does
    not extend to persons who have statutory U.S. citizenship based
    on birth in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. The
    statutory U.S. citizenship which Congress conferred on people
    born in Puerto Rico in 1917 is not full, equal, guaranteed, or
    irrevocable constitutional citizenship.
        That means that except as Congress in its discretion may
    provide the ``dual citizenship'' rules that apply to a person
    with full U.S. citizenship who acquires another nationality do
    not apply to person with statutory citizenship based on birth
    in Puerto Rico. If the people of Puerto Rico exercise self-
    determination in favor of separate sovereignty and nationality
    they must expect their U.S. citizenship will come to an end.
        So in the most simple terms, there is a choice to be made
    between U.S. nationality and Puerto Rican nationality. Upon
    recognition of a separate sovereign nation of Puerto Rico, in
    order to give effect to that new status the Congress will
    require an election between retention of statutory U.S.
    citizenship and the new Puerto Rican nationality and
    citizenship. Mass dual citizenship would frustrate the
    succession of state process and undermine the national
    sovereignty of both nations.
        In order for a bilateral pact to establish a free
    association status and relationship to the U.S. based on
    international law, the pact would have to replace common
    nationality and citizenship with separate nationality and
    citizenship, in which the citi-

    zens of each nation will be aliens when present in the
    sovereign territory of the other.
        While special residence, travel and employment exceptions
    can be made to the immigration laws, citizens of Puerto Rico
    will have the status of non-immigrant aliens for purposes of
    U.S. law under a free association treaty. Even such limited
    special rights or privileges, like the overall relationship of
    free association, will be terminable at will by either of the
    governments concerned acting unilaterally in the exercise of
    its sovereignty.
        Birth in Puerto Rico or relationship to a person with U.S.
    citizenship due to birth in Puerto Rico will not provide a
    basis for acquisition or continuation of U.S. citizenship by
    naturalization.
        These are not arbitrary requirements. For without adherence
    to these principles free association consistent with the U.S.
    political system would become merely another form of
    colonialism in which persons with common citizenship but
    residing in different jurisdictions have less than equal
    rights.
        In addition, based on the precedents established by the
    U.S. in its relations with the associated republics of the
    Pacific, it is clear the U.S. Congress will never approve an
    arrangement in which virtually 100% of the population of a
    foreign nation has U.S. citizenship.
        This would usurp and undermine U.S. sovereignty, as well as
    make a mockery of Puerto Rican nationality and a fraud of
    Puerto Rican sovereignty. As clever as some may try to be in
    arguing that such mass dual citizenship is possible, the
    Congress quite properly will be even more determined and
    resourceful in protecting U.S. sovereignty by preventing mass
    dual citizenship.
        If Puerto Rico is to make free association the vehicle of
    full self-government, it must face reality and not simply try
    to transform the ambiguity of the last fogy years into a new
    false doctrine or poetical status myth. Those who truly believe
    in separate Puerto Rican sovereignty will realize that dual
    citizenship is not compatible with the goal of separate
    nationhood for Puerto Rico.
        Like independence, free association means leaving the U.S.
    political union to become a member of the international
    community. Even if you have a special close relationship under
    a free association treaty it is temporary and can be terminated
    at any time.
        In order to support this summary I am attaching hereto a
    brief background paper describing free association in a more
    generic way as it relates to the self-determination process in
    Puerto Rico.
        This letter and the attachments are due, again, to my
    concern that in Puerto Rico and the record before Congress
    there is accurate information available about true legal nature
    and political effects of the decolonization process which the
    U.S. successfully implemented with respect to the former Trust
    Territory of the Pacific Islands.
        In closing, I wish you every success in your attempt to
    reverse the effects of decades of anachronistic territorial
    administration in Puerto Rico in a way that enables the people
    to redeem their dignity by making a determined choice between
    real options that can be implemented free of perverse
    ambiguities. Only in that way will the citizenry of the island,
    in the same manner as all the citizens in this nation, be
    enabled to realize their human and cultural potential, and
    protect their God-given liberty.
        Whether that is accomplished through integration leading to
    statehood, independence, or independence with free association
    (associated republic status), history calls on the Congress and
    the people of Puerto Rico to end the current temporary status
    and achieve full self-government as the new century begins.

                                    ------

     UNDERSTANDING FREE ASSOCIATION AS A FORM OF SEPARATE SOVEREIGNTY AND
      POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE CASE OF DECOLONIZATION OF PUERTO RICO

                        By Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, II

        Consistent with relevant resolutions of the U.N. General
    Assembly, Puerto Rico's options for full self-government are:
    Independence (Example: Philippines); Free Association (Example:
    Republic of the Marshall Islands); Integration (Example:
    Hawaii). See, G.A. Resolution 1514 (1960); G.A. Resolution 1541
    (1960); G.A. Resolution 2625 (1970).
        For purposes of international law including the relevant
    U.N. resolutions international conventions to which the U.S. is
    a party, the current status of Puerto Rico is best described as
    substantial but incomplete integration. This means that the
    decolonization process that commenced in 1952 has not been
    fulfilled.
        As a matter of U.S. domestic constitutional law, a
    territory within U.S. sovereignty which has internal
    constitutional self-government but is not fully integrated into
    the national system of political union on the basis of equality
    remains an unincorporated territory, and can be referred to as
    a ``commonwealth.'' (Example: Puerto Rico and the Northern
    Mariana Islands).
        For purposes of U.S. constitutional law, independence and
    free association are status options which are created and exist
    on the international plane. Thus, instead of the sovereign
    primacy of Congress under the territorial clause, the sources
    of constitutional authority with respect to nations with
    separate sovereignty include the article II, section 2 treaty-
    making power and the applicable article I, section 8 powers of
    Congress such as that relating to nationality and immigration
    law.
        Relations between the U.S. and a nation which is
    independent or in free association are conducted on the basis
    of international law. Thus, independence and free association
    are status options which would remove Puerto Rico from its
    present existence within the sphere of sovereignty of the
    United States and establish a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty
    outside the political union and federal constitutional system
    of the United States.
        Instead of completing the integration process through full
    incorporation and statehood, either independence or free
    association would ``dis-integrate'' Puerto Rico from the United
    States. This would terminate U.S. sovereignty, nationality and
    citizenship and end application of the U.S. Constitution in
    Puerto Rico. In other words, the process of gradual integration
    which began in 1898, and which was advanced by statutory U.S.
    citizenship in 1917 and establishment of constitutional
    arrangements approved by the people in 1952, would be
    terminated in favor of either independence or free association.
        Under either independence or free association the U.S. and
    Puerto Rico could enter into treaties to define relations on a
    sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association as practiced by
    the U.S. is simply a form of independence in which two
    sovereign nations agree to a special close relationship that
    involves delegations of the sovereign powers of the associated
    to the United States in such areas as defense and other
    governmental functions to the extent both parties to the
    treaty-based relationship agree to continue such arrangements.
        The specific features of free association and balance
    between autonomy and interdependence can vary within well-
    defined limits based on negotiated terms to which both parties
    to the arrangement have agreed, but all such features must be
    consistent with the structure of the agreement as a treaty-
    based sovereign-to-sovereign relationship. In U.S. experience
    and practice, even where free association has many features of
    a dependent territorial status the sources and allocation of
    constitutional authority triggered by the underlying separation
    of sovereignty, nationality and citizenship causes the
    relationship to evolve in the direction of full independence
    rather than functional re-integration.
        Free association is essentially a transitional status for
    peoples who do not seek full integration, but rather seek to
    maintain close political, economic and security relations with
    another nation during the period after separate sovereignty is
    achieved. Again, this could be accomplished by treaty between
    independent nations as well. Thus, free association is a form
    of separate sovereignty that usually arises from the
    relationship between a colonial power and a people formerly in
    a colonial status who at least temporarily want close ties with
    the former colonial power for so long as both parties agree to
    the arrangements.
        Free association is recognized as a distinct form of
    separate sovereignty, even though legally it also is consistent
    with independence. Specifically, free association is consistent
    with independence because, as explained below, the special and
    close bilateral relationship created by a free association
    treaty or pact can be terminated in favor of conventional
    independence at any time by either party.
        In addition, the U.S. and the international community have
    recognized that a separate nation can be a party to a bilateral
    pact of free association and be an independent nation in the
    conventional sense at the same time. For example, the Republic
    of the Marshall Islands is party to the Compact of Free
    Association with the United States, but has been admitted to
    the United Nations as an independent nation.
        Thus, the international practice regarding free association
    actually is best understood as a method of facilitating the
    decolonization process leading to simple and absolute
    independence. Essentially, it allows new nations not prepared
    economically, socially or strategically for emergence into
    conventional independence to achieve separate nationhood in
    cooperation with a former colonial power or another existing
    nation.
        Under international law and practice including the relevant
    U.N. resolutions and existing free association precedents, free
    association must be terminable at will by either party in order
    to establish that the relationship is consistent with separate
    sovereignty and the right of self-determination is preserved.
    This international standard, also recognized by the U.S., is
    based on the requirement that free association not be allowed
    to become merely a new form of internationally accepted
    colonialism.
        Specifically, free association is not intended to create a
    new form of territorial status or quasi-sovereignty. It is not
    a ``nation-within-a-nation'' relationship or a form of
    irrevocable permanent union, but is, again, a sovereign-to-
    sovereign treaty-based relationship which is either of limited
    duration or terminable at will by either party acting
    unilaterally.
        In other words, both parties have a sovereign right to
    terminate the relationship at any time. The free association
    treaty may provide for the terms and measures which will apply
    in the event of unilateral termination, but the ability of
    either party to do so can not be conditioned or encumbered in
    such a manner that the exercise of the right to terminate the
    relationship effectively is impaired or precluded.
        For that reason, the territory and population of each
    nation involved must be within the sovereignty, nationality and
    citizenship of that nation, and the elements and mechanisms of
    the free association relationship must be defined consistent
    with that requirement. Separate and distinct sovereignty and
    nationality must be established at the time of decolonization
    and preserved under the relationship or the ability of either
    party to terminate will be impaired.
        Thus, the major power may grant to people of the free
    associated nation special rights normally associated with the
    major power's own citizenship classifications, such as open
    immigration and residence rights.
        However, these arrangements are subject to the same
    terminability as the overall relationship, and thus may be
    either for a limited duration or subject to unilateral
    termination by either party at any time.
        Consequently, there can be no permanent mass dual
    nationality because this would be inconsistent with the
    preservation of the underlying separate sovereignty. Any
    special rights or classifications of the major power extended
    to the people of a free associated nation are more in the
    nature of residency rights and do not prevent either nation
    from exercising separate sovereignty with respect to the
    nationality its own population.
        Upon termination of the free association relationship by
    either party, any such classifications or special residency
    rights will be subject to unilateral termination as well. Both
    during and after any period of free association, the people of
    each of the two nations will owe their allegiance to and have
    the separate nationality of their own country. Any attempt to
    deviate from these norms of international law and practice
    would undermine the sovereignty of both nations, as would
    impair the right of self-determination which must be preserved
    to ensure the relationship is based on consent rather than
    coercion.
        In summary, the United States recognizes each of the three
    U.N. accepted status options for Puerto Rico to achieve full
    self-government. One of those options, integration, is within
    U.S. sovereignty and the federal political union, the other
    two, independence and free association, exist without U.S.
    sovereignty, nationality and citizenship.
        Obviously, Puerto Rico can not act unilaterally to
    establish a new status. This is so not only because of U.S.
    sovereignty and the authority of Congress under the territorial
    clause, but also because Puerto Rico seeks the agreement of the
    U.S. to the terms under which any of these options would be
    implemented. This means Congress must agree to the terms under
    which a new status is defined and implemented.
        There is no right on the part of Puerto Rico unilaterally
    to define its relationship with the United States. Nor would it
    be consistent with U.S. commitments to respect the right of
    self-determination for non-self-governing people under U.S.
    administration to dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico in a
    manner which does not take into account the freely expressed
    wishes of the residents.
        Thus, as the two parties which must define and carry out a
    future relationship based on consent and the right of self-
    determination which each must exercise, Congress, on behalf of
    the United States, and the people of Puerto Rico, acting
    through their constitutional process, must decide whether
    decolonization will be completed through completion of the
    process for integration into union or separation and nationhood
    apart from the U.S. for Puerto Rico.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0445.078